Re: Numeric Literals (Summary 2)

I've updated the literals tests to fully account for the radix notation;
and I've also updated the tests to use the new radix#(number):(number)
notation.  Let me know if anyone finds any errors.

Find them at:

http://jryan.perlmonk.org/images/literals.tar.gz

Michael Lazzaro wrote:

> --- Numeric Literals ---
>
> decimal notation:
>      123       # int 123
>     0123       # int 123
>     123.0      # num 123.0
>     -123       # int -123
>
>    0_1.2_3     # ok
>    _01.23      # wrong
>    01.23_      # wrong
>    01_._23     # wrong
>    1__2        # wrong
>
> exponential notation:
>    -1.23e4     # num
>    -1.23E4     # num (identical)
>    1.23_e_4    # wrong
>
> bin/oct/hex notation:
>
>    0b0110      # bin
>    0c0123      # oct
>    0x00ff      # hex
>    0x00fF      # hex, == 0x00ff
>    0x00FF      # hex, == 0x00ff
>
>    -0xff       # ok
>    -0x00ff     # ok
>
>    0xf_f       # ok
>    0x_ff       # ok
>
> explicit radix:
>
>    (radix 2-32)
>
>    20:1gj       # base 20
>    20:1GJ       # base 20 (identical)
>    20:1.G.J     # base 20 (identical)
>    20:1_G_J     # base 20 (identical)
>    20:1.16.19   # base 20 (identical)
>    20:1_16_19   # NOT identical; == 20:11619
>    20:1.1_6.19  # WRONG: dotted form may not have underlines
>
>    -20:1GJ      # base 20 (negative)
>    -20:1.16.19  # base 20 (negative)
>
>    62:zZ       # base 62 (?)
>    62:z.Z      # base 62 (identical?)
>    62:z_Z      # base 62 (identical?)
>    62:Zz       # base 62 (not identical?)
>
>   (radix 33-RADIX_MAX)
>
>   256:0.253.254.255   # base 256
>   256:0_253_254_255   # base 256
>
> MikeL