``` var Oo22 = 60 window.alert(Oo22 - 0o22) // 42 O_o ``` Indeed, you ain't gonna need it for obfuscating your code, there's already more than one way to do it. :-)
Since there won't be much code containing words starting with OO, O0, 0O or 00, the risk of eye-bleeding is low. OT0H, it would only be good for facilitating the work of obfuscators (all their numerical constants will start with 0O or 00, and all their variables with OO or O0 followed by digits). —Claude Le 24 juil. 2013 à 02:06, Brendan Eich <[email protected]> a écrit : > I'm with Jeff. YAGNI, YouWillHateIt, > ItWillMakeYourEyesBleedWhenYouLeastExpectIt. Remember homomorphic URL > phishing attacks? > > /be > > Erik Arvidsson wrote: >> It was decided to allow it for consistency with 0XFF and 0B11 and >> leave this up to style guides and linters. >> >> On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Walden<[email protected]> wrote: >>> var n = 0O755; >>> >>> Is this something anyone wants to read? I certainly don't! Allowing only >>> lowercase 'o' in octal literal syntax is inconsistent with 'x' and 'b', but >>> on balance I think that's probably preferable to admitting this >>> monstrosity. :-) (Which isn't to say I care strongly enough to spend a >>> whole bunch of time arguing the point, only enough to raise it as a concern >>> and see if others agree.) >>> >>> Jeff >>> _______________________________________________ >>> es-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss _______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
