Hi, Just FYI, there are more than 10_0000_0000 wierd people in weird Asia who use weird 10^4 based digit system. j On Feb 9, 2012 12:31 AM, "oliver" wrote: > On Wed, Feb 08, 2012 at 02:50:55PM +0000, David House wrote: > > On 02/08/2012 02:39 PM, Gabriel Scherer wrote: > > >People. Please. Tell me you are *not* arguing over underscores in > > >numeric literals ! > > > > This is not totally academic. I have come across the exact bug I > > describe. It was painful. > [...] > > > Let me guess where the problem might be came from: > > When i think of code that uses a value > 1_000_000 > and you want to change it to a value ten times higher, > it should be changed to > 10_000_000 > > > Coming from notation that does NOT allow "_" in tzhe numbers, > it could be done by just adding one "0" at the end of the value: > > 1000000 > becomes > 10000000 > ^ > > with the "0" added at the end. > > But also correct ("more correct" would be: > > 1000000 > becomes > 10000000 > ^ > > "0" added at the millions. > > "Just add one "0" at the end" > > Is the edit-habit, which works fine. > > > But when allowing "_" inside numbers, > but people don't change the "wrong" editing behaviour, > then allowing the "_" at all means introducing a new kind > of possible errors. > > This could be an argument to throw "_" at all, > because adding a "0" after the "1" instead of just > adding a "0" at the end is rarely used behaviour of editing, > and some people might call it "weird". ;-) > > So this argument also could be used to disallow "_" at all. > > > But no, thats not what I want to argue for ;-) > > > > OK, let's stop that discussion now. > > If someone thinks the three-digit-distance-"_" is a feature that makes > sense, > a feature wish could be added for OCaml. ;-) > > > Ciao, > Oliver > > -- > Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives: > https://sympa-roc.inria.fr/wws/info/caml-list > Beginner's list: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/ocaml_beginners > Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs > >