home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
NetNews Offline 2
/
NetNews Offline Volume 2.iso
/
news
/
comp
/
std
/
c
/
586
< prev
next >
Wrap
Internet Message Format
|
1996-08-06
|
2KB
Path: tbj.dec.com!diamond
From: diamond@tbj.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c
Subject: Re: Valid floating-point constants ?
Date: 18 Mar 1996 03:26:30 GMT
Organization: Digital Equipment Corporation Japan , Tokyo
Message-ID: <4iil56$t3q@usenet.pa.dec.com>
References: <4ibmd9$aq5@gate.seicom.net>
Reply-To: diamond@tbj.dec.com (Norman Diamond)
NNTP-Posting-Host: jit533.tbj.dec.com
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