Re: Literal concatenation, strings vs. numbers (was: Numeric literals in other than base 10 - was Annoying octal notation)

On Mon, 24 Aug 2009 12:45:25 +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > greg writes: > >> J. Cliff Dyer wrote: >> >> > What happens if you use a literal like 0x10f 304? >> >> To me the obvious thing to do is concatenate them textually and then >> treat the whole thing as a single numeric literal. Anything else

Re: Literal concatenation, strings vs. numbers (was: Numeric literals in other than base 10 - was Annoying octal notation)

On Aug 23, 7:45 pm, Ben Finney wrote: > greg writes: > > J. Cliff Dyer wrote: > > > > What happens if you use a literal like 0x10f 304? > > > To me the obvious thing to do is concatenate them textually and then > > treat the whole thing as a single numeric literal. Anything else > > wouldn't be s

Literal concatenation, strings vs. numbers (was: Numeric literals in other than base 10 - was Annoying octal notation)

greg writes: > J. Cliff Dyer wrote: > > > What happens if you use a literal like 0x10f 304? > > To me the obvious thing to do is concatenate them textually and then > treat the whole thing as a single numeric literal. Anything else > wouldn't be sane, IMO. Yet, as was pointed out, that behaviour