So what we decide to do with this?
I can work on that case, but I have 2 questions:
- do we care to provide parsing of numbers in other notations as Pharo one?
That�s a good question.. I completely misunderstood the code there because that sounds a bit
strange that a language supports other languages syntax, but not �inside� the language but somehow as a tool�
I fear that even if someone needs Fotran number parsing, the last place to look would be the Pharo base kernel
classes�
There are 2 extremes here. If you want to parse a fortran number, you probably also want to parse other fortran parts, and so you have some dedicated parser.
But if you want to just parse some general number and it�s +2, then you can�t easily do that.
- what is the number syntax that we want to support?
Yes, we we need to document it. Right now it is �some extended Squeak format� which is just defined by the implementation.
I can levee the implementation that is used now (a sq one). Or use extended. But it should be really nice to think about what we want to have instead of what we can use.
Uko
Marcus
Cheers!
Uko
thanks!
Stef
I think just because 1.0s was explicitely not supported in Squeak?
There should be some related tests...
It should be rather simple to change.