Valid floating-point constants ?

Thread View: comp.std.c

3 messages

[T] Back to Threads [V] Tree View [G] Group Articles

3 total messages Started by Fred Tydeman Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:04

#4896

Author: Fred Tydeman
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 12:04

11 lines
904 bytes

I have run across some tools and compilers that do not like:

  08.5    09.   09e0

They complain that those are invalid octal integers.  I claim
that they are valid decimal floating-point constants. Who is right?

Fred Tydeman          +49 (7031) 288-964  Tydeman Consulting
Meisenweg 20          tydeman@netcom.com  Programming, testing, C/C++ training
71032 Boeblingen      /\old/\   \/new\/   Numerics editor of Jrnl. C Lang. Tran.
Deutschland (Germany) tydeman@tybor.com   Member of X3J11 (ANSI "C")

Re: Valid floating-point constants ?

#4897

Author: Larry Jones
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 1996 16:01

16 lines
1129 bytes

In article <4ibmd9$aq5@gate.seicom.net>, tydeman@tybor.com   (Fred Tydeman) writes:
> I have run across some tools and compilers that do not like:
> 
>   08.5    09.   09e0
> 
> They complain that those are invalid octal integers.  I claim
> that they are valid decimal floating-point constants. Who is right?

You are.  Each of those should be parsed as a single pp-number
preprocessing token which has the form of a floating-constant, not an
octal-constant.  There is nothing in the syntax or semantics that
disallows leading zeros in floating-constants.
----
Larry Jones, SDRC, 2000 Eastman Dr., Milford, OH  45150-2789  513-576-2070
larry.jones@sdrc.com
ANY idiot can be famous.  I figure I'm more the LEGENDARY type! -- Calvin

Re: Valid floating-point constants ?

#4902

Author: Norman Diamond
Date: Mon, 18 Mar 1996 03:26

23 lines
1804 bytes

In article <4ibmd9$aq5@gate.seicom.net>, tydeman@tybor.com   (Fred Tydeman) writes:
>I have run across some tools and compilers that do not like:
>  08.5    09.   09e0
>They complain that those are invalid octal integers.  I claim
>that they are valid decimal floating-point constants. Who is right?

Just to be snarky, you're both right :-)  They are invalid octal integers
but they are valid decimal floating-point constants :-)

Now, the phrase "tools and compilers" suggests that you're not using
something that is supposed to be a standard conforming C implementation.
If the compiler is part of a complete C implementation, and the vendor
asserts that the implementation conforms to the ISO or ANSI standard,
*and* if you have obeyed the vendor's instructions on how to invoke the
implementation in a conforming manner, then you should demand a refund
from the vendor.  However, if the tools are editors and other things
that are not part of a C implementation or not asserted to be conforming,
then the standard has nothing to say about them.
--
 <<  If this were the company's opinion, I would not be allowed to post it.  >>
"I paid money for this car, I pay taxes for vehicle registration and a driver's
license, so I can drive in any lane I want, and no innocent victim gets to call
the cops just 'cause the lane's not goin' the same direction as me" - J Spammer

Thread Navigation

This is a paginated view of messages in the thread with full content displayed inline.

Messages are displayed in chronological order, with the original post highlighted in green.

Use pagination controls to navigate through all messages in large threads.

Back to All Threads