Message-ID: <fc8e89a7-57b7-b495-320c-e91a194591ee@dunslane.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2022 11:19:15 -0500
MIME-Version: 1.0
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/91.2.0
Subject: Re: Non-decimal integer literals
Content-Language: en-US
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>,
 Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>,
 John Naylor <john.naylor@enterprisedb.com>
References: <202201251843.ajn72lsfpt36@alvherre.pgsql>
From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net>
In-Reply-To: <202201251843.ajn72lsfpt36@alvherre.pgsql>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/fc8e89a7-57b7-b495-320c-e91a194591ee%40dunslane.net>
Precedence: bulk


On 1/25/22 13:43, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> On 2022-Jan-24, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> +decinteger		{decdigit}(_?{decdigit})*
>> +hexinteger		0[xX](_?{hexdigit})+
>> +octinteger		0[oO](_?{octdigit})+
>> +bininteger		0[bB](_?{bindigit})+
> I think there should be test cases for literals that these seemingly
> strange expressions reject, which are a number with trailing _ (0x123_),
> and one with consecutive underscores __ (0x12__34).
>
> I like the idea of these literals.  I would have found them useful on
> many occassions.


+1. I can't remember the number of times I have miscounted a long string
of digits in a literal.


cheers


andrew


--
Andrew Dunstan
EDB: https://www.enterprisedb.com