Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from September 1999
Re: %#b format: bug?
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next
From:
Jarkko Hietaniemi
Date:
September 9, 1999 01:00
Subject:
Re: %#b format: bug?
Message ID:
14295.26810.738515.537263@alpha.hut.fi
Tom Christiansen writes:
> Watch this:
>
> printf "%#o\n", 181
> 0265
>
> printf "%#x\n", 181
> 0xb5
>
> But
>
> printf "%#b\n", 181
> 010110101
>
> I should have expected
>
> 0b10110101
>
> for that one. And given this:
>
> printf "%#X\n", 181
> 0XB5
>
> This surprises me:
>
> printf "%#B\n", 181
> %#B
Fixed now for _62.
> However, both 0X and 0x are legal numeric prefixes, but only 0b are,
Huh? ./perl -e 'printf "%#b\n", 0X181'
Bareword found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "0X181"
(Missing operator before X181?)
syntax error at -e line 1, next token ???
> so perhaps I should be less surprised.
>
> --tom
--
$jhi++; # http://www.iki.fi/jhi/
# There is this special biologist word we use for 'stable'.
# It is 'dead'. -- Jack Cohen
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next