On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 06:34 PM, Larry Wall wrote:
So can we pull that trigger? Seriously, 0123 as octal seems like a poster child for weird archaic behaviors, given the frequency with which leading 0's happen in the rest of the world and the obvious utility of understanding them as Not-Octal-Dammit.On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:59:02AM -0800, Michael Lazzaro wrote: : (A) Unification of Literal <--> Stringified Numeric Behaviors : : 0123 == "0123" : 0xff == "0xff" : 20#1gj == "20#1gj" : 1e10 == "1e10" : : .... in the interest of regularity, flexibility, etc. Comments?This is impossible unless we do away with 0123. There are too many leading 0's in the decimal world. On the other hand, 0x is unlikely to occur by accident.
Is there any use for which it is a necessity (chmod, obviously), and for which 0c123, 0o123, or 8:123 would not be a sufficient replacement?
MikeL
