parseInt and implicit octal constants

David-Sarah Hopwood david.hopwood at industrial-designers.co.uk
Sun Feb 22 06:30:30 PST 2009


Herman Venter wrote:
> I appreciate that this proposal does not try to go all the way on octal. I am not so sure this is a good thing or that it makes the proposal more likely to succeed.

I wouldn't be opposed to removing octal entirely from the spec, but
bearing in mind the section 16 wording on syntactic extensions, even
that would not prevent implementors from conformantly supporting it.

> For the record, I'm personally all for the proposed change, would also like to all other forms of octal go away and most of all would like to have a standard that defines just one language, not a powerset.
> 
> But even if the standard does change, I'm not going to bet on the implementations following suit any time soon. I'm not so sure that having a standard that is ignored is a good thing either.
> 
> If the change in the standard is agreed to by the representatives of the implementers, they should first be sure that the change will in fact be made in their implementations (and sooner rather than later, as in their next release).

If there is a thorough test suite for specification changes in ES3.1:
<http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/449>,
then I would expect there to be considerable pressure from developers
for implementations to pass that test suite, as there has been in
similar cases such as the ACID tests.

(Of course, a test suite cannot guarantee conformance, but it can test
whether implementors have tried to address spec changes and known bugs.)

I have submitted a bug for this change to parseInt, with a test case:
<http://bugs.ecmascript.org/ticket/449>.

-- 
David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥



More information about the Es-discuss mailing list