Front page | perl.perl5.porters |
Postings from August 2019
On Mon, 19 Aug 2019 22:53:04 -0700, tonyc wrote:
> 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.
Applied as 14d26b44a1d7eee67837ec0ea8fb0368ac6fe33e.
Tony
---
via perlbug: queue: perl5 status: open
https://rt.perl.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=134230
Thread Next