Print Statement

msbalaji has asked for the wisdom of the Perl Monks concerning the following question:

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re: Print Statement by izut (Chaplain) on Feb 17, 2006 at 11:41 UTC
Perl treats 25_000_000 as integer. To print it correctly, you should do something like this: `print "25_000_000", " ", -4, "\n";` [download] Igor 'izut' Sutton your code, your rules.	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Print Statement by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 17, 2006 at 15:58 UTC
1225.5, 1225.50, 12255E-1 and 1_225.5 are all stored indentically internally, and `print` will print them all as 1225.5 because that is how print displays the value 1225.5. `print` has no idea how the number came to be; it just knows its value. If you wish to preserve the underscores, you want to treat the number as a string instead of as a number, so put quotes around it.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^2: Print Statement by Anonymous Monk on Feb 21, 2011 at 10:57 UTC
I was trying to do : `perl -e 'print 0100101."\n"'` [download] As expected I got the decimal equivalent of octal as: `32833` [download] However, doing `perl -e 'print 100101."\n"'` [download] returned `String found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "100101."\n"" (Missing operator before "\n"?) syntax error at -e line 1, near "100101."\n"" Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.` [download] Any idea why this fuss about a zero? Not a burning problem or something. Just curious.	[reply] [d/l] [select]
Re^3: Print Statement by ikegami (Patriarch) on Feb 21, 2011 at 20:17 UTC
The "." is part of the number. `print 100101. "\n" ^ missing operator` [download] Add a space before the ".".	[reply] [d/l]
Re: Print Statement by Fletch (Bishop) on Feb 17, 2006 at 13:57 UTC
a) You have a "question", not a "doubt"; b) see `perldoc perldata` in the section "Scalar value constructors" where it covers that an underscore may be used in a numeric literal for readability (but perl will silently discard them after parsing your source).	[reply]
Re^2: Print Statement by chromatic (Archbishop) on Feb 17, 2006 at 19:40 UTC
a) You have a "question", not a "doubt"; The OP's original language is not English. Doubt is a reasonable translation from several languages.	[reply]
Re^3: Print Statement by Fletch (Bishop) on Feb 17, 2006 at 20:03 UTC
Yes, and I'm trying to help them become more idiomatic speakers of English; but I'll be sure to remember that the next time I see someone taking doubts from reporters at a press conference. Update: And I'm not the only person around here it annoys either (c.f. "Question" vs "Doubt").	[reply]