On 29/08/2019 00:24, Andrew Barnert wrote:
On Aug 27, 2019, at 10:21, Rhodri James
wrote: You make the point yourself: this is something we already understand from dealing with complex numbers in other circumstances. That is not true of generic single-character string prefixes.
It certainly is true for 1.23f.
I would contend that (and anyway 1.23f is redundant; 1.23 is already a float literal). But anyway I said "generic single-character string prefixes", because that's what the original proposal was. You seem to be going off on creating literal syntax for standard library types (which, for the record, I think is a good idea and deserves its own thread), but that's not what the OP seems to be going for. -- Rhodri James *-* Kynesim Ltd