Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 18:54 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Apr 2019 19:02 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 19:08 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Shiro Kawai (12 Apr 2019 19:33 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 19:46 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Peter Bex (12 Apr 2019 19:55 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 20:01 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Peter Bex (12 Apr 2019 20:08 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Arthur A. Gleckler (12 Apr 2019 20:15 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 20:23 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 22:17 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility John Cowan (12 Apr 2019 22:28 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Jim Rees (13 Apr 2019 00:04 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Apr 2019 00:10 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility John Cowan (13 Apr 2019 03:14 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (13 Apr 2019 07:27 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility John Cowan (13 Apr 2019 13:52 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Arthur A. Gleckler (13 Apr 2019 14:26 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (13 Apr 2019 14:40 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility John Cowan (13 Apr 2019 15:27 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Peter Bex (13 Apr 2019 19:37 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility John Cowan (13 Apr 2019 19:47 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (15 Apr 2019 09:32 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Arthur A. Gleckler (15 Apr 2019 14:33 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (15 Apr 2019 15:18 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Arthur A. Gleckler (15 Apr 2019 15:49 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (15 Apr 2019 20:16 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (13 Apr 2019 19:53 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Per Bothner (13 Apr 2019 16:01 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (13 Apr 2019 16:10 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Per Bothner (12 Apr 2019 19:41 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 19:47 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Per Bothner (12 Apr 2019 20:27 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 21:07 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility John Cowan (12 Apr 2019 21:53 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Lassi Kortela (12 Apr 2019 22:37 UTC)
Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Per Bothner (13 Apr 2019 16:23 UTC)

Re: Underscores in numbers for legibility Peter Bex 12 Apr 2019 20:08 UTC
On Fri, Apr 12, 2019 at 11:00:54PM +0300, Lassi Kortela wrote:
> > Same here for CHICKEN, but I'm a bit hesitant to go in and complicate
> > the numerical syntax of Scheme.  We just got rid of the ridiculous hash
> > syntax (which _really_ complicated Scheme numerical syntax)!
>
> I'm sympathetic to that - simplicity is good. I was thinking it would be
> best to only allow it between digits, and deny it at the beginning or end of
> a token. And perhaps also to disallow more than one consecutive underscore.
> So like this:
>
>   1_000_000    ; good
>   1_000_000_   ; bad
>   _1_000_000   ; bad
>   _10000000    ; bad
>   10000000_    ; bad
>   1__000_000   ; maybe bad
>
> If underscores are allowed at the beginning of a token, then there is more
> possibility of conflict -- e.g. in C you can write a function named '_123'.

I also think this will definitely break backwards compatibility for
non-base prefixed numbers.  That's actually worse than the complexity
(which is managable).

Cheers,
Peter