Re: Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
The decision of record, including a rationale citing lack of control over lookalikes https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/es-discuss/2012-January/019784.html Rick On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 11:45 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote: Claude Pache wrote: the risk of eye-bleeding is low. My eye already bled just from this thread! http://cheezburger.com/**2253407488 http://cheezburger.com/2253407488 /be __**_ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/**listinfo/es-discusshttps://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
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 es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
FWIW, I d0On't like it neither On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 12:04 PM, Jeff Walden jwalden...@mit.edu 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 es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
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 jwalden...@mit.edu 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 es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss -- erik ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
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 Waldenjwalden...@mit.edu 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 es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
``` 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 bren...@mozilla.com 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 Waldenjwalden...@mit.edu 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 es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
Re: Is it really a good idea for octal numbers to allow capital-O, e.g. 0O755?
Claude Pache wrote: the risk of eye-bleeding is low. My eye already bled just from this thread! http://cheezburger.com/2253407488 /be ___ es-discuss mailing list es-discuss@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
