rev 6673 in scanner.cpp seems the reason of this change.
old : else if (inch < '0' && inch > '9')
new : else if (inch < '0' || inch > '9')
If the test above is true then :
state = EXP_EXCLUDED; /* no longer scanning a number
So there was a bug in 4.1.0 and before...
Jean-Louis
2012/2/6 Rick McGuire <[email protected]>
> On Mon, Feb 6, 2012 at 2:04 PM, Mark Miesfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> > In trunk this line of code raises an error condition:
> >
> > x = 3aE+6
> >
> > But, in 4.1.0 and all the way back to 3.0.0 it is accepted.
> >
> > I see that according to the definition of numbers:
> >
> >
> > The definition of numbers is, therefore, extended as follows:
> >
> >>>-+------------+--+----------------------+--+-digits--------+---------->
> >
> > +-whitespace-+ +-sign--+------------+-+ +-digits.digits-+
> >
> > +-whitespace-+ +-.digits-------+
> >
> > +-digits.-------+
> >
> >>--+---------------------+--+------------+-------------------------><
> >
> > +-E--+------+--digits-+ +-whitespace-+
> >
> > +-sign-+
> >
> >
> >
> > the 'a' is not valid if we use the statement: "digits are one or more of
> the
> > decimal digits 0-9" from the first, un-extended definition.
>
> The rule that applies here is not the definition of a number, but the
> definition of a SYMBOL. Section 1.10.4.4. This states:
>
> One other form of symbol is allowed to support the representation of
> numbers in exponential format. The
> symbol starts with a digit (0-9) or a period, and it can end with the
> sequence E or e, followed immediately
> by an optional sign (- or +), followed immediately by one or more
> digits (which cannot be followed by
> any other symbol characters). The sign in this context is part of the
> symbol and is not an operator.
> These are valid numbers in exponential notation:
> 17.3E-12
> .03e+9
>
> By this definition, 3ae+6 should be scanned as a single symbol token
> (the old behavior). I'm not aware of any updates that would have
> changed this behavior.
>
> Rick
>
>
> >
> > But, under the extended definition, there is no statement as to what
> > 'digits' is.
> >
> > This seems like such a fundamental change.
> >
> > Has ooRexx always been wrong and this is just fixed in 4.2.0? Since
> 3.0.0
> > is, I've always assumed, the same as IBM' Object Rexx, was this wrong
> there
> > also?
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> >
> > Mark Miesfeld
> >
> >
> >
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> > Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
> > The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> > is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> > Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> > http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
> > _______________________________________________
> > Oorexx-devel mailing list
> > [email protected]
> > https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
> >
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
> The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
> is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
> Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
> _______________________________________________
> Oorexx-devel mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Try before you buy = See our experts in action!
The most comprehensive online learning library for Microsoft developers
is just $99.99! Visual Studio, SharePoint, SQL - plus HTML5, CSS3, MVC3,
Metro Style Apps, more. Free future releases when you subscribe now!
http://p.sf.net/sfu/learndevnow-dev2
_______________________________________________
Oorexx-devel mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/oorexx-devel
