On 2006-10-26, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 2006-10-25 at 20:57-0000 Aaron Denney wrote: >> On 2006-10-25, Jon Fairbairn <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > No. A small alteration to the lexical syntax for the sake of >> > improved readability seems perfectly justifiable as long as >> > it doesn't make the lexical syntax /significantly/ more >> > complicated or harder to learn. >> >> Sure. But some of us don't find it terribly readable. > > I'm not sure what you are saying here. Assessing readability > by introspection is terribly unreliable. Unfamiliarity with > the presentation of numbers with underlines is likely to > make them feel a bit awkward to begin with, but habituation > is likely to change that.
Fair enough, I don't actually find it less readable, merely quite ugly. I might indeed get used to it. >> I think the ~~ operator hack gets 90% of the "benefit" for >> those who want it. > > I thought my earlier message adequately demonstrated that it > does /not/. You demonstrated some corner cases that weren't convincing at all. > Another case: if you change âsquare > 123479010987â to âsquare 123_479_010_987â to improve > readability it still means the same thing. If you change it > to âsquare 123~~479~~010~~987â it doesn't. This is a bit more convincing. -- Aaron Denney -><- _______________________________________________ Haskell-prime mailing list Haskell-prime@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-prime