On Jul 25, 7:22 pm, "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Jul 24, 6:08 pm, Steven D'Aprano > > > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 20:09:00 +0200, Bjoern Schliessmann wrote: > > > Stargaming wrote: > > >> On Tue, 24 Jul 2007 03:19:53 -0700, bearophileHUGS wrote: > > > >>> While in a syntax like: > > >>> for i in xrange(1_000_000): > > >>> my eyes help me group them at once. > > > >> Sounds like a good thing to be but the arbitrary positioning > > >> doesnt make any sense. > > > > Checking underscore positions would only add complexity. Why not > > > just ignore them, no matter where they are? > > > Underscores in numerics are UGLY. Why not take a leaf out of implicit > > string concatenation and allow numeric literals to implicitly concatenate? > > > Python already does: > > "hello-" "world" => "hello-world" > > > Propose: > > 123 456 789 => 123456789 > > 123.456 789 => 123.456789 > > So, spaces will no longer be delimiters? Won't that cause > much wailing and gnashing of teeth?
Nope. Just replace the current grammar rule atom: ... NAME | STRING+ | NUMBER by atom: ... NAME | STRING+ | NUMBER+ The resulting grammar is still free of ambiguities. The tokenizer doesn't complain anyway - not even yet. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
