From: Michael Lazzaro [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 11:37 AM, Garrett Goebel wrote: > > In perl5, octal is signified by the leading zero. There is no 0c0123 > > notation. > > Right, but on p6l we had been talking about eliminating the assumed > octalness of 0123, therefore requiring us to come up with an > alternate syntax, e.g. 0c0123. Because assuming octalness on > leading zero is a back-@$$ed affront to humanity that leads to > things like: > > 0123 != '0123'
I don't know... it probably looks fine to most C and Perl programmers. And I still find it very confusing that you wrote: > - need to verify that 0b1, 0c1, 0x1 are still allowed When 0c1 has never been allowed in any exist perl implementation. Though I'd have to say it looks like a good replacement for the leading-zero. I went back through those posts, and I found where you suggested 0c0123... but I can't find a post from Larry confirming it. It would helpful if there were more citations of the A&E's, and even perhaps links to the mailing list posts where Larry definitively comes down on one side or another. In the same vein, it'd be nice if syntax developed on the documentation list to flush out ambiguities or propose syntax workarounds were marked as such. When reading some of the summaries, I've found myself wondering what parts come from the A&E's, which have Larry & Damian since reversed or altered, and which are suggestions from the documentation team... -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
