<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 12, 2016 at 1:00 AM, Paul Moore <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:p.f.moore@gmail.com" target="_blank">p.f.moore@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><span class=""><br>
</span>I have no opinion on anything other than that whatever syntax is<br>
implemented as long as it allows single underscores between digits,<br>
such as<br>
<br>
1_000_000<br>
<br>
Everything else is irrelevant to me, and if I read code that uses<br>
anything else, I'd judge it based on readability and style, and<br>
wouldn't care about arguments that "it's allowed by the grammar".</blockquote><div><br></div><div>I totally agree -- and it's clear that other cultures group digits differently, so we should allow that, but while I'll live with it either way, I'd rather have it be as restrictive as possible rather than as unrestricted as possible. As in:</div><div><br></div><div>no double underscores</div><div>no underscore right before or after a period</div><div>no underscore at the beginning or end.</div><div>....</div><div><br></div><div>As Paul said, as long as I can do the above, I'll be fine, but I think everyone's source code will be a lot cleaner in the long run if you don't have the option of doing who knows what weird arrangement....</div><div><br></div><div>As for the SS# example -- it seems a bad idea to me to store a SS# number as an integer anyway -- so all the weird IDs etc. formats aren't really relevant...</div><div><br></div><div>-CHB</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature"><br>Christopher Barker, Ph.D.<br>Oceanographer<br><br>Emergency Response Division<br>NOAA/NOS/OR&R (206) 526-6959 voice<br>7600 Sand Point Way NE (206) 526-6329 fax<br>Seattle, WA 98115 (206) 526-6317 main reception<br><br><a href="mailto:Chris.Barker@noaa.gov" target="_blank">Chris.Barker@noaa.gov</a></div>
</div></div>