+1
> El 13 feb. 2023, a las 20:37, Daniel Slomovits <daniels...@gmail.com>
> escribió:
>
> Seems reasonable to me. I was just wishing for such a thing for exactly the
> reason you mention (keeping track of zeroes in large integer literals).
> AFAICT you've done a pretty good job laying out the possible error
> conditions. I think your option 1 makes sense—the error-prone-ness is the
> sort of thing that could happen in theory, but I'm not too worried about in
> practice. Or option 2 is fine, I'm just not familiar enough with the parser
> to know how much harder it might be to implement.
>
> On Mon, Feb 13, 2023 at 1:54 PM Privat, Jean <privat.j...@uqam.ca
> <mailto:privat.j...@uqam.ca>> wrote:
> This PhEP describes the extension of Pharo numeric literals to accepts (and
> ignore) underscore characters (`_` ASCII 95).
>
> Many languages (including Python https://peps.python.org/pep-0515/
> <https://peps.python.org/pep-0515/> , Java
> https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/underscores-literals.html
>
> <https://docs.oracle.com/javase/7/docs/technotes/guides/language/underscores-literals.html>
> or Ruby) accept some forms of numeric literal that ignore _.
>
> The idea is to permit long literals that are still readable, eg.
> `1_000_000_000` is easier for a human than `100000000` especially since in
> the previous literal a zero is missing (I'm a tricky deceitful fellow).
>
> The details of the proposal are in the PR:
> https://github.com/pharo-project/pheps/pull/16
> <https://github.com/pharo-project/pheps/pull/16>
>
> --
> Jean Privat
