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?

Thanks,
/Autrijus/

Attachment: pgp11vtHJMLL9.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to