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=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,INVALID_MSGID autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: fac41,80e076d5ce42fefa X-Google-Attributes: gidfac41,public X-Google-Thread: 103376,9e2776c05028676e X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public From: abo@minkirri.apana.org.au (Donovan Baarda) Subject: Re: Why Ada is not the Commercial Lang of Choice Date: 1997/06/20 Message-ID: #1/1 X-Deja-AN: 251291820 References: <5o9eca$aoi$1@goanna.cs.rmit.edu.au> X-Server-Date: 20 Jun 1997 04:50:43 GMT Organization: Minkirri Internet Access Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada,comp.lang.eiffel Date: 1997-06-20T04:50:43+00:00 List-Id: On Fri, 20 Jun 1997 02:40:50 GMT, Don Harrison wrote: >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. > Nahh, why limit things? Arbitary placement of underscores is handy when you want to define an integer literal bit-field where bits are clustered on arbitary boundarys. >From a compiler implementation point of view, enforcing underscore placement limitations is more hassle than not enforcing them. ABO