Hello,
I think 0 can be a decimal-lit, don't you think? However, the spec
reads as follows:
intLit = decimalLit | octalLit | hexLit
decimalLit = ( "1" … "9" ) { decimalDigit }
octalLit = "0" { octalDigit }
hexLit = "0" ( "x" | "X" ) hexDigit { hexDigit }
Is there a reason, semantically speaking, why decimal must be greater
than 0? And that's not including a plus/minus sign when you factor in
constants.
Of course, parsing, order matters, similar as with the escape
character phrases in the string-literal:
hex-lit | oct-lit | dec-lit
And so on, since you have to rule out 0x\d+ for hex, followed by 0\d* ...
Actually, now that I look at it "0" (really, "decimal" 0) is lurking
in the oct-lit phrase.
Kind of a grammatical nit-pick, I know, but I just wanted to be clear
here. Seems like a possible source of confusion if you aren't paying
careful attention.
Thoughts?
Best regards,
Michael Powell
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Protocol Buffers" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/protobuf.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
