> Although JavaScript is not Java, the language designers adopted the
> same syntax for integer literals that is found in Java (and C/C++/C#)
> ... integer literals with a leading 0 are interpreted to be octal
> literals, unless they start with 0x or 0X to indicate hexadecimal
> literals.
>
> Crai
On Wed, 16 Feb 2005 14:19:15 -0500, Slattery, Tim - BLS
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > What I don't understand is why it does this. Why does the JS
> > validation differ from the Java validation?
>
> JavaScript is NOT Java!! They have confusingly similar names, but they are
> totally different. T
I think I remember reading somewhere that the Validator plugin
enforces these validations as a rule, which means the behavior should
be consistent between their JS as well as Java validation codes.
They do this to match what the Java compiler accepts, which IMO is
strange since the validation shoul
> What I don't understand is why it does this. Why does the JS
> validation differ from the Java validation?
JavaScript is NOT Java!! They have confusingly similar names, but they are
totally different. There's no reason to expect that the performance of one
should be similar to the performanc
Has anyone else noticed the JavaScript function for Integer validation
does goofy things when you have a leading zero?
Try passing these number into an Integer field:
045
075
078
085
The first 2 will pass, the second 2 will fail. After looking at the
source I found out that the JavaScript funct
5 matches
Mail list logo
