jh@pcsbst.UUCP (Johannes Heuft) (07/26/88)
I ran into a similar problem (see 0x47e+barney) when writing a column of
FP numbers which I prepared automatically with the help of an editor.
For convenience, I used a pattern like "0000000.00" and replaced only some
zeroes where appropriate. The result looked like
0001234.00
or
0001912.00
The Microsoft C Compiler 5.0 (4.0?) accepted the first number and did the
correct conversion. However the second number caused an error message
saying that a non-octal digit was found in an octal (!!!) number.
Please be aware that I am familiar with scanners, parsers etc. Thus,
I don't need an explanation.
My only question: what does the standard say about well formed numbers?
Johannes Heuft
unido!pcsbst!jhron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) (07/27/88)
It's obvious that the Microsoft C compiler is just plain wrong. First, float numbers are not subject to the leading 0 and 0x octal interpretation. Second, even if the number were octal, 8's and 9's (probably not such a good idea) are legal and map to octal 10's and 11's in that position. -Ron
guy@gorodish.Sun.COM (Guy Harris) (07/28/88)
> Second, even if the number were octal, 8's and 9's (probably not such a good > idea) are legal At least according to the January 11, 1988 draft, 8's and 9's are *not* legal in octal numbers; check 3.1.3.2 Integer constants.
henry@utzoo.uucp (Henry Spencer) (07/29/88)
In article <Jul.27.10.55.59.1988.7614@topaz.rutgers.edu> ron@topaz.rutgers.edu (Ron Natalie) writes: >... Second, even if the number were octal, >8's and 9's (probably not such a good idea) are legal and map >to octal 10's and 11's in that position. Well, not any more they aren't legal -- X3J11 has dropped that feature, on the grounds that nobody likes it and it's hazardous. -- MSDOS is not dead, it just | Henry Spencer at U of Toronto Zoology smells that way. | uunet!mnetor!utzoo!henry henry@zoo.toronto.edu