Ben Schmidt wrote:
> Ben Schmidt wrote:
>
>>> OTOH, with & there is no ambiguity because the various uses of & are
>>> strictly separated:
>>>
>> Actually, there still is ambiguity unless one requires a decimal point or
>> exponent. Without that restriction
>>
>> &123.456
>>
>> could still mean 123 (or 123.0) concatenated with 456. But with the
>> restriction
>>
>> &123
>>
>> is invalid. Not sure whether that's desirable. Probably the lesser of two
>> evils.
>> Of course, it needs to be enforced that printf and such functions either
>> omit the
>> ampersand for floats which happen to be integers (probably undesirable) or
>> always
>> append a '.0' in this case.
>>
>> Would wrapping floats in braces be a better syntax? I don't think this would
>> clash
>> with anything: dictionaries require keys followed by colons which don't
>> occur in
>> floats, and a float is also an invalid variable or function name due to
>> starting
>> with a digit or sign (+/-) so couldn't be used as part of curly-brace
>> variable or
>> function names. E.g.
>>
>> :let myfloat={12.52}
>> :let mybig={1234e56}
>> :let myintegerfloat={123}
>>
>> To me, this is nicer than a leading &, and avoids the nasty restriction of
>> needing
>> a decimal point all the time/ambiguity of decimal point vs. concatenation.
>>
>
> Actually, to clarify, my proposal is that a set of curly braces is taken to
> represent a float if and only if it is (1) not preceded by a valid variable
> name
> character and (2) contains a valid float.
>
> I.e. floats:
>
> {+123.456}
> {-123}
> {123e-4}
> {123.456}something_to_concatenate
>
> non-floats:
>
> {dictionary: 'value'}
> variable_name_with_number_{123}
> variable_name_with_number_and_variable_e_concatted_and_included_{123e4}
> variable_name_with_six_digits_here_{123.456}
> {variable_name_from_a_variable}
> {10<x?'variable_1':'variable_2'}
>
> combination!:
>
> variable_name_with_float_expression_giving_{{0.55}<some_float?'true':'false'}
> variable_name_with_float_that_prints_as_integer_{{123}}
>
> invalid:
>
> variable_name_with_punctuation_due_to_float_{{123.456}}
>
> I think it works unambiguously and sensibly, though, of course, you can still
> do
> dumb things if you try hard enough! But I don't think it breaks anything that
> currently works (even if what currently works is dumb)!
>
let x12=3
echo x{1.2}
Works quite nicely -- and is ambiguous with respect to floating point
overloading.
Regards,
Chip Campbell
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message from the "vim_dev" maillist.
For more information, visit http://www.vim.org/maillist.php
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
