Autrijus Tang writes: > Currently Pugs numifies hexadecimal and octal strings as if they > are literals; that means "0x123" and "0o456" all work as expected. > Is that an acceptable treatment? What about "Inf" and "NaN" in > numeric context?
If we follow Perl 5's lead, they all numify to zero (generalizing for "Inf" and "NaN"). Of course, we could afford to get stricter about numeric prefix numification, and if we did that, then we could make them work correctly. Personally, I'd like to see C<+"345abc"> be an error, and allow a function that extracts a numeric prefix. Luke > Thanks, > /Autrijus/
