Would it be hard to bring in
Smalltalkish 8r377? Another (and similar to 0)
special char for specific radix - well, wouldn’t it be better to
include a
letter for all radixes (CoffeeScript can maybe take it on, too).
Herby
-----Pôvodná správa-----
From: Brendan Eich
Sent: Thursday, January 12, 2012 7:21 PM
To: Axel Rauschmayer
Cc: es-discuss
Subject: Re: Octal literals have their uses (you Unix haters skip
this one)
Sorry, are you seriously proposing that Node.js users when they
specify file
permissions should manually write that out? Come on! Sorry, that's
just way
too verbose and ugly.
And performance can be an issue, but the readability and writability
problems are enough.
/be
Axel Rauschmayer
January 12, 2012 10:10 AM
parseInt("377", 8)? Assuming that performance isn’t an issue.
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Sorry, are you seriously
proposing that Node.js users when they specify file permissions should
manually write that out? Come on! Sorry, that's just way too verbose and
ugly.
And performance can be an issue, but the readability and writability
problems are enough.
/be
parseInt("377", 8)?
Assuming that performance isn’t an issue.
See
https://github.com/jashkenas/coffee-script/pull/2021 -- strict mode
support in CoffeeScript exposes a valid use-case, Unix-flavor file
permissions (mode bits we used to say). Node.js APIs really want users
to call with literals such as 0644. Strict mode says no way.
For now CoffeeScript probably will support 0o644 and translate to
hex or
decimal literals to dodge the strict error. But ES5 still has octal in
Annex B, and AFAIK octal support is still required for web
compatibility.
Strict mode is not being adopted widely enough, certainly not in
node.js
code, to kill octal literals. Killing octal literals is user-hostile
when it comes to Unix permissions. So I think we should stop tilting at
a friendly windmill, and either support octal literals (but not noctal
-- no 08 or 09), or support 0o377 etc. as CoffeeScript looks like it
will do.
Some may object to lowercase o as prefix. It's clear enough in all
fonts, but if we allow uppercase O too, then some might fear user
confusion with 0 used instead of O. But if we support 0o377 and 0O377,
we can continue to reject (in strict mode and therefore in Harmony)
00377. Anyway, there's no homograph phishing attack threat as with URLs.
If the CoffeeScript experiment with 0o prefixes for octal works out,
I
think we should adopt that prefix. But at this point I wouldn't be
surprised to see retention of 0377 support be demanded by
CoffeeScript/Node.js users, and they have a point.
CoffeeScript can certainly compile this to a strict hex or decimal
literal to dodge the error, but then JS/Node.js is at a loss, and for no
good reason. In this case I will argue for supporting octal literals in
strict mode.
/be
_______________________________________________
es-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
