Re: What's the rationale for considering "0x1.max" as invalid ?

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 21:40:59 UTC, Basile B. wrote: On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 21:10:47 UTC, Basile B. wrote: On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 20:56:54 UTC, Alex Parrill wrote: On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 19:00:43 UTC, Basile B. wrote: 0x1.max // exponent expected in hex float 0x1 .max //

Re: What's the rationale for considering "0x1.max" as invalid ?

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 21:10:47 UTC, Basile B. wrote: On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 20:56:54 UTC, Alex Parrill wrote: On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 19:00:43 UTC, Basile B. wrote: 0x1.max // exponent expected in hex float 0x1 .max // OK 1.max // OK What's the ambiguity when it's an hex

Re: What's the rationale for considering "0x1.max" as invalid ?

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 20:56:54 UTC, Alex Parrill wrote: On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 19:00:43 UTC, Basile B. wrote: 0x1.max // exponent expected in hex float 0x1 .max // OK 1.max // OK What's the ambiguity when it's an hex literal ? It's potentially ambiguous with hexadecimal floating

Re: What's the rationale for considering "0x1.max" as invalid ?

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 19:00:43 UTC, Basile B. wrote: 0x1.max // exponent expected in hex float 0x1 .max // OK 1.max // OK What's the ambiguity when it's an hex literal ? It's potentially ambiguous with hexadecimal floating point numbers 0xdeadbeef.p5 // hex float or hex int + method?

Re: What's the rationale for considering "0x1.max" as invalid ?

On Tuesday, 5 April 2016 at 19:00:43 UTC, Basile B. wrote: 0x1.max // exponent expected in hex float 0x1 .max // OK 1.max // OK What's the ambiguity when it's an hex literal ? https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15880

What's the rationale for considering "0x1.max" as invalid ?

0x1.max // exponent expected in hex float 0x1 .max // OK 1.max // OK What's the ambiguity when it's an hex literal ?