<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div>On Feb 11, 2016, at 00:22, Georg Brandl <<a href="mailto:g.brandl@gmx.net">g.brandl@gmx.net</a>> wrote:</div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span> Allowing underscores in string arguments to the ``Decimal`` constructor. It</span><br><span> could be argued that these are akin to literals, since there is no Decimal</span><br><span> literal available (yet).</span><br></blockquote><div><br></div>I'm +1 on this. Partly for consistency (see below)--but also, one of the use cases for Decimal is when you need more precision than float, meaning you'll often have even more digits to separate.<div><div><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite"><span></span><span>* Allowing underscores in string arguments to ``int()`` with base argument 0,</span><br><span> ``float()`` and ``complex()``.</span><br></blockquote><br></div><div>+1, because these are actually defined in terms of literals. For example, under int, "<span style="text-align: justify; background-color: rgba(255, 255, 255, 0);">Base 0 means to interpret exactly as a code literal". This isn't actually quite true, because "-2" is not an integer literal but is accepted here--but see float for an example that *is* rigorously defined, and still defers to literal syntax and semantics.</span></div></div></body></html>