Allen Wirfs-Brock wrote: > David-Sarah Hopwood wrote: >> 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. > > Actually, I don't think section 16 applies.
It doesn't apply to parseInt; it does to octal numeric literals and string/regexp octal escapes (which "going all the way on octal" would remove from the spec). [...] > Finally, there is another approach to resolving this issue. Define a > new global function, parseInteger, that does the "right thing" and > relegate parseInt to Annex B. That's not a bad idea, given that parseInt has the additional flaw of silently stopping at the first invalid character, which this change will not fix. But it should be a "static" method of Number, not a global, to avoid further polluting the global namespace and potentially clashing with existing user functions. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥ _______________________________________________ Es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
