Talk:Numeric separator syntax

From Rosetta Code


This task is somewhat similar to the   Commatizing numbers   Rosetta Code task which   (among other things)   asks to insert commas   (or other characters)   for number separation   (or numeric separator syntax).   That other task does not however, address what methods/facilities are   built into   a language when displaying/formatting numbers.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:01, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

This task is for numeric input not for numeric output. What (if any) syntax will the compiler / interpreter accept as a grouping character and still consider the input item to be a number. --Thundergnat (talk) 19:07, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I gathered that,   but   input   was not explicitly stated, just inferred,   but I assumed that's what the task's author had in mind.   And the specification of numbers   within   a computer program may not be considered as input   (as opposed to data being   read   as/for input, for instance, from a device).     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 19:54, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
[quote]...the specification of numbers within a computer program may not be considered input...[/quote] Really? Why not? It came from somewhere, whether it was read from an outside source at program execution or entered by the programmer. Anything that isn't part of the compiler is input; it just may be that it is input when the program is written rather than when it is executed. --Thundergnat (talk) 20:35, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I said "may" not be considered, it wasn't a proclamation.     I was trying to leave it up to the reader's point of view.   In my opinion, numbers (with or without use of literals) within a computer program are part of the compute program, just as the language statements are.   The numbers   (as per the commatizing numbers task)   did come from somewhere (or generated might be a better term),   but I don't consider them as input   (···   but they can be, that output can be considered as input to something else).   It's all relative to what is being discussed, that is, your point of view seems centric to the computer program, my view is centric to the data   (as that seems to be the topic).   My point was that   input   was not explicitly stated, just inferred.   This discussion might be more about semantics than centricity (centrality?), however,   and this is one rabbit hole that might not be worth going into.     -- Gerard Schildberger (talk) 21:13, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Both of you understand my intention :) Feel free to edit the task to make it more clear. I do think however that by talking about "syntax", it should be clear that I'm talking about the code that is being processed (e.g., interpreted, compiled). --Sorawee (talk) 00:41, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
Is there really a need for a change? I found it immediately obvious as to what was required and futhermore, it highlighted what could be a significant difference in languages that do allow numerical separators: whether more than one can be used adjacent to each other.
Nice point. Nice wording. (From my perspective). --Paddy3118 (talk) 06:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)