> 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
4 matches
Mail list logo
