From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.2 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e2776c05028676e
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
X-Google-Thread: fac41,80e076d5ce42fefa,start
X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public
From: donh@syd.csa.com.au (Don Harrison)
Subject: Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of  Choice
Date: 1997/06/20
Message-ID: <EC1zG2.DFo@syd.csa.com.au>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 251248063
Sender: news@syd.csa.com.au
X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dev50
References: <5o9eca$aoi$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au>
Organization: CSC Australia, Sydney
Reply-To: donh@syd.csa.com.au
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel
Date: 1997-06-20T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Dale Stanbrough wrote:

:We shouldn't of course forget the option of using underscores in numeric
:literals, which to my continual amazement, no other language that i know of
:has!

Well, you can stop being amazed because Eiffel allows them. :)  

However, they differ in that digits must be grouped in threes. Grouping in 
threes is an arbitrary choice and, IMO, too restrictive. For example, it makes 
no sense for base 2 literals. OTOH, I think Ada's free placement is too liberal 
because it allows different groupings within the same literal.

Something in between is probably optimal - like allowing any grouping but with
the restriction that it must be consistent within a literal.


Don.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Don Harrison             donh@syd.csa.com.au