On 15/02/2012 21:33, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 01:24:13PM -0800, H. S. Teoh wrote:
[...]
This is ambiguous, since you could interpret 0xFFp0F as either 0xFFp0
followed by the suffix 'F', or 0xFFp0F with an exponent of 0x0F no
suffix.
[...]
Actually, nevermind that. I misread the specs; the exponent is always in
decimal, not hex, so this case is actually unambiguous.
Maybe that's the reason for requiring the exponent - to render the F
unambiguous.
Though it could be done by defining the grammar such that the exponent is optional but the
F suffix is allowed only after an exponent. But I wonder whether, if it's done that way,
many people will inadvertently try to use F as a suffix to an exponentless HexFloat. So
requiring an exponent might be to protect against this mistake.
Up until another person makes the mistake of assuming the exponent of a HexFloat is meant
to be hexadecimal....
Stewart.
