Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2019
On Fri, 28 Jun 2019 03:36:08 -0700, sisyphus@cpan.org wrote:
> On Thu, 27 Jun 2019 22:34:32 -0700, ikegami@adaelis.com wrote:
> > Changing this means changing Scalar::Util::looks_like_number. Would
> > that
> > break things?
>
> I agree that looks_like_number()also needs to be thought about.
>
> Perl's current behaviour is to issue the "isn't numeric" warning when
> "0xff"+0 is evaluated.
> However, I doubt that such a warning is valid now that "0xff" is
> numified to 255.
> It was certainly a valid warning when "0xff" numified to 0 ... but I'm
> thinking that warning should not be emitted for the current behaviour,
> and nor should looks_like_number("0xff") return FALSE.
I don't think looks_like_number() needs to change - I think C<"0xff"> needs to return to numerically evaluating as 0, pre the attached.
Tony
---
via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=134230
Thread Previous
|
Thread Next