Valid Numbers (was Re: 0x47e+barney not considered C)

Article View: comp.std.c

Article #5234

#5234

From: Johannes Heuft
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1988 07:01

21 lines
1182 bytes

I ran into a similar problem (see 0x47e+barney) when writing a column of
FP numbers which I prepared automatically with the help of an editor.
For convenience, I used a pattern like "0000000.00" and replaced only some
zeroes where appropriate. The result looked like

       0001234.00
or
       0001912.00


The Microsoft C Compiler 5.0 (4.0?) accepted the first number and did the
correct conversion. However the second number caused an error message
saying that a non-octal digit was found in an octal (!!!) number.

Please be aware that I am familiar with scanners, parsers etc. Thus,
I don't need an explanation.

My only question: what does the standard say about well formed numbers?

		Johannes Heuft
		unido!pcsbst!jh

Technical Details

Message-ID: <295@pcsbst.UUCP>

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!unido!pcsbst!jh

References: <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp> <283@sdti.UUCP>

Show Full Headers

Complete Article Headers

Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!utzoo!attcan!uunet!mcvax!unido!pcsbst!jh
From: jh@pcsbst.UUCP (Johannes Heuft)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Valid Numbers (was Re: 0x47e+barney not considered C)
Message-ID: <295@pcsbst.UUCP>
Date: 26 Jul 88 07:01:55 GMT
References: <1988Jul6.142014.6116@sq.uucp> <283@sdti.UUCP>
Reply-To: unido!jh@pcsbst.UUCP (Johannes Heuft)
Organization: PCS GmbH, Pfaelzer-Wald-Str. 36, 8000 Muenchen; West-Germany
Lines: 21

Reply to Parent Message