From: Mathieu Bouchard <matju@...>
Date: 2005-01-06T22:54:33+09:00
Subject: Re: Allowing custom number literal suffixes?


On Wed, 5 Jan 2005, Brent Roman wrote:

> I already define Time(string), so T(string) would really be no great 
> improvement.

It's three less letters, and five less chars if you drop the parens by
using just doublequotes. I don't think it's no great improvement,
especially considering it's just two chars away from the shortest possible
syntax.

> It would be neat if we could add some elegant way to represent generic
> literal objects.  I think backslash is currently undefined outside of
> quoted strings.  Can someone more familar with the parser confirm
> this?

Well, I think the backslash character should be reserved for more special
needs.

> Further, Prefixes and Suffixes need not be single letters:
> \-122.12'40"\Long
> \+37.19'59"\Lat
> call Kernel::Literal::Suffix:Long ('-122.12\'40"')
> and Kernel::Literal::Suffix::Lat ('+37.19\'59"')
> respectively

I think that special-purpose literals aren't used that often, and if they
are, it's because there's not enough "separation between code and
data" (i'm thinking of data-driven programming...). Else, in the case I
need them shortcuts for short scripts and IRB, I'd rather use global
methods.

For those with (possibly irrational) fear of global methods, there's the
possibility of making them into a Module to be included in whichever
context in which the shortcuts are desired.

Else we may as well turn all parse-errors into retriable/resumable
exceptions, and then all "SIN TAX" problems would be solved once and for
all. ;-)

_____________________________________________________________________
Mathieu Bouchard -=- Montr�al QC Canada -=- http://artengine.ca/matju