Re: Numeric Literals (Summary 2)

On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 12:48  PM, Garrett Goebel wrote:
> I went back through those posts, and I found where you suggested 
> 0c0123... but I can't find a post from Larry confirming it.

It's not confirmed, just wild speculation.  If we're reasonably sure we 
don't have any gaping errors in the summary, we can ask the design team 
to pass judgement upon it and make a final decision.  They may indeed 
decide 0123 needs to stay octal.

> In the same vein, it'd be nice if syntax developed on the 
> documentation list to flush out ambiguities or propose syntax 
> workarounds were marked as such.  When reading some of the summaries, 
> I've found myself wondering what parts come from the A&E's, which have 
> Larry & Damian since reversed or altered, and which are suggestions 
> from the documentation team...

Yeah, I agree.  One of the problems is that most of the things we need 
to talk about most are the things that have been described the least, 
so we by definition have to suggest a lot as we go, and it's difficult 
to figure out where the merely "implied" stuff from the A&Es ends and 
the "revised" or "suggested" stuff begins.  :-/  Not sure there's any 
easy solution, since it's almost impossible to find previous references 
to some stuff.  ("Oh, that was talked about in Zurich!", or "you know, 
that thread from last April")  ;-P

Once we give the document(s) to them, they'll give us feedback, and 
after an iteration or two we'll have a section they can mark as 
"approved".  _THEN_ it will be FINAL, as in people should code to it.  
Mostly.  We hope.  :-)


MikeL