[RFC][VOTE] Number Format Separator

> Hi Thomas, > > Thomas Punt wrote: >> Hi internals! >> >> Voting has opened for the inclusion of a digit separator in PHP[1]. >> Voting ends in >> one week's time on January 20th. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> [1]: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/number_format_separator >> > > Initially I was going to abstain from this vote, but I've changed my > mind and I am now voting in favour of the RFC. > > When choosing whether to add features to the language, we must set a > high standard, because every new additions means additional complexity > and more knowledge PHP developers have to have. So, every new addition > should be made to fit well with existing features, be useful, and > > This feature offers some benefit in some cases. It doesn't introduce > much new complexity. There's no new syntax or tokens, it just modifies > the form of the existing number tokens. It fits in well what's already > there, consistently applying to all number literals. It follows > established convention in other languages. Its appearance at least > hints that values with these seperators are not constants or > identifiers, but numbers, reducing potential for confusion. It limits > its own application to prevent abuse (no leading, trailing, or > repeated separators). And it's relatively intuitive. > > So I think it might be worth adding, thus my vote. Though we must be > conservative with additions, this one doesn't seem to be too problematic. > > That said, I might be voting the wrong way. The feature does seem to > have limited applicability. That's really the only thing I can say > against it. > > Thanks. >

> > Thomas Punt wrote: >> >> Hi internals! >> >> Voting has opened for the inclusion of a digit separator in PHP[1]. Voting >> ends in >> one week's time on January 20th. >> >> Thanks, >> Tom >> >> [1]: http://wiki.php.net/rfc/number_format_separator >> > > Initially I was going to abstain from this vote, but I've changed my mind > and I am now voting in favour of the RFC. > > When choosing whether to add features to the language, we must set a high > standard, because every new additions means additional complexity and more > knowledge PHP developers have to have. So, every new addition should be made > to fit well with existing features, be useful, and > > This feature offers some benefit in some cases. It doesn't introduce much > new complexity. There's no new syntax or tokens, it just modifies the form > of the existing number tokens. It fits in well what's already there, > consistently applying to all number literals. It follows established > convention in other languages. Its appearance at least hints that values > with these seperators are not constants or identifiers, but numbers, > reducing potential for confusion. It limits its own application to prevent > abuse (no leading, trailing, or repeated separators). And it's relatively > intuitive. > > So I think it might be worth adding, thus my vote. Though we must be > conservative with additions, this one doesn't seem to be too problematic. > > That said, I might be voting the wrong way. The feature does seem to have > limited applicability. That's really the only thing I can say against it.

> Le 13/01/2016 19:48, Thomas Punt a écrit : >> Voting has opened for the inclusion of a digit separator in PHP[1]. >> Voting ends in >> one week's time on January 20th. > > Hi, > > At AFUP, we would be on the -1 side (by a huge margin). > > The "good" thing would be code that's a bit more readable, yes. > > But it would be harder to search in code, as there would be more than > one way to write a number. Basically, it would break grep/find. > > Splitting numbers so they are more readable is kind of a presentation > matter and, as such, could be done by an editor/IDE when displaying > code, without having to modify the code by hand (actually, I'm quite > surprised it's not a feature I remember seeing in any IDE). > > In any case, thanks for you work on this!

> Hi internals! > >> Voting has opened for the inclusion of a digit separator in PHP[1]. Voting ends in >> one week's time on January 20th. > Voting has now ended with 20 for and 18 against. This means the RFC has been > declined. > > Thank you to all who participated in the RFC discussion and voting! > > -Tom