Dan Sugalski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> At 3:10 PM -0700 8/16/04, Danny Werner (via RT) wrote:
>>Examples from the 2th aoudad book (page 127) did not
>>turn out as expected. Being completely new to this,
>>I did not know where to put the testcode.
> And now the test's in. Thanks!
And fails with:
print -0x2a
Another one the lexer doesn't cope with. Is it reasonable to allow that?
My gut feeling towards hex, oct, and bin notation is: the digits are
unsigned. But, as we don't have unsigned numbers at all (or almost),
they are converted to the signed integer these bits are reflecting.
0xffffffff => -1
which of course is wrong on a 64-bit machine. Or we are taking it as
signed and create a BigInt constant, if it doesn't fit. Then above
notation would make some sense.
Well, another one of these: "We need exact PDDs for, well, all".
BTW my request WRT integer PMCs isn't really fully answered.
We really ought to nail down that stuff step by step.
And, while IIRC the test was from an P6PE example, it's of course not
carved in stone, that the Parrot PASM/PIR lexer does follow totally
Perl6 literal syntax. We should use a common reasonable compromise of
major languages we want to support.
leo
