On 28 Oct 2013, at 10:41, Yuriy Tymchuk <yuriy.tymchuk@me.com> wrote:
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?
Thatâs a good question.. I completely misunderstood the code there because that sounds a bit strange that a language supports other languages syntax, but not âinsideâ 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...
- what is the number syntax that we want to support?
Yes, we we need to document it. Right now it is âsome extended Squeak formatâ which is just defined by the implementation. Marcus
Cheers! Uko
On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:05, Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> wrote:
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.
2013/8/13 Stéphane Ducasse <stephane.ducasse@inria.fr> Hi nicolas
We would really like to have only one number parser in Pharo as well as handling the 1.0s syntax marcus raised a question that I could not answer. Do you habve nfrmation to share with us so that we can take a decision?
Stef
so the strange thing is that this is *explicitly* implemented in SqNumberParser to not allow 2.0s
- do not allow single s without following digits as ScaledDecimal
It is not explained why this is a good idea.
In general, we need to merge the whole NumberParser hierarchy into one class, i don't understand why we have three classes now.