Although JavaScript is not Java, the language designers adopted the
same syntax for integer literals that is found in Java (and C/C++/C#)
... integer literals with a leading 0 are interpreted to be octal
literals, unless they start with 0x or 0X to indicate hexadecimal
literals.
Craig
If
What I don't understand is why it does this. Why does the JS
validation differ from the Java validation?
JavaScript is NOT Java!! They have confusingly similar names, but they are
totally different. There's no reason to expect that the performance of one
should be similar to the performance
I think I remember reading somewhere that the Validator plugin
enforces these validations as a rule, which means the behavior should
be consistent between their JS as well as Java validation codes.
They do this to match what the Java compiler accepts, which IMO is
strange since the validation
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:19:15 -0500, Slattery, Tim - BLS
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What I don't understand is why it does this. Why does the JS
validation differ from the Java validation?
JavaScript is NOT Java!! They have confusingly similar names, but they are
totally different. There's
4 matches
Mail list logo
