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?

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...

- 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.

Marcus

Cheers!
Uko

On 19 Aug 2013, at 10:05, St�phane 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 St�phane 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.