Larry Wall wrote: > Yes, that's a convenient escape. But really, arguments from principle > aside, the underlying question is what someone will see if they look > at 1.e5, and I suspect most people will see a number with an exponent. > This is a spot where Ruby violates Least Surprise, at least for people > who aren't used to seeing methods hanging off of literals.
To the original point, I have to seriously question the usefulness of invoking ambiguously named methods on numeric literals... 1e5 # number 1.0e5 # number (1).e5 # method call, since you really mean it The decimal point without a fractional part looks bizarre to me: 1.e5 # syntax error Surely +. and -. are invalid syntax? << (\.\d+)? >>, not << (\.\d*)? >>. -- Gordon Henriksen [EMAIL PROTECTED]