> Apart from making 0640 a syntax error (which I think is wrong too), > could this be solved by *requiring* the argument to be a string? (Or > some other data type, but that's probably overkill.) That solves the problem only in that particular context. I would think that if it is deemed undesirable for a leading 0 to imply octal, then it would be best to decide on a different syntax for octal literals and use that syntax consistently everywhere. I am personally partial to allowing an optional radix (in decimal) followed by the letter r at the beginning of a literal, so 19, 8r23, and 16r13 would all represent the same value.
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4