On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 10:43:07AM -0800, Larry Wall wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2005 at 11:09:11PM +0800, Autrijus Tang wrote: > : 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? > > It's okay by me. The restriction on not autoconverting hex and octal > stems from the days when 0777 was assumed to be octal. Since we've > changed that to 0o777, it's much less likely to autoconvert zip codes > to a different number. We can allow 0b111 as well. (Scientific notation > is already allowed in Perl 5 autoconversion.)
... pmichaud has since talked me into only allowing only digits and dots during numifying and thereby outlawing scientific notations altogether, which is another end of the spectrum and is also consistent. So, between the two consistencies, do you think that the more DWIMmy one of parsing "0o123" is more helpful? I'll implement it tomorrow if that's the case. :) Thanks, /Autrijus/
pgpoWL5ugYRuI.pgp
Description: PGP signature
