- How about we use BINARY_NUMBER instead of BINARY_LITERAL? I know this is bikeshedding… It’s still more consisent with other literal token types (e.g. NULL and STRING) that don’t have the _LITERAL suffix. If we made it consistent the other way round, we’d have to have NULL_LITERAL, STRING_LITERAL, etc. Of course, we can just choose to live with the inconsistency and leave it as it is.
- These literals should only be recognized with --language=es6, shouldn’t they? In the current form, it seems like the code will recognize them with es5 language too, won’t it? Attila. > On Sep 1, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Andreas Woess <andreas.wo...@oracle.com> wrote: > > Please reviewhttp://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aw/8134873/ > forhttps://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134873 > > Implements Lexer/Parser support for ECMAScript 6 binary (0b) and octal (0o) > literals. I've renamed OCTAL (legacy octal literal, e.g. 0777) to > OCTAL_LEGACY and added OCTAL and BINARY_LITERAL token types (the _LITERAL > suffix is to disambiguate with TokenKind.BINARY). > > Thanks, > Andreas >
