Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles; site uiuccsb.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!we13!ihnp4!inuxc!pur-ee!uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich
From: eich@uiuccsb.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.lang.c
Subject: Re: c-sick - (nf)
Message-ID: <9000025@uiuccsb.UUCP>
Date: Fri, 4-May-84 19:32:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: uiuccsb.9000025
Posted: Fri May  4 19:32:00 1984
Date-Received: Sun, 6-May-84 01:28:06 EDT
References: <19457@wivax.UUCP>
Lines: 16
Nf-ID: #R:wivax:-1945700:uiuccsb:9000025:000:425
Nf-From: uiuccsb!eich    May  4 18:32:00 1984

#R:wivax:-1945700:uiuccsb:9000025:000:425
uiuccsb!eich    May  4 18:32:00 1984


Reference Manual, 2.4.1 (p180)

	An integer constant consisting of a sequence of digits is taken
	to be octal if it begins with 0 (digit zero), decimal otherwise.
	The digits 8 and 9 have octal value 10 and 11 respectively.

So this isn't a PCC lapse.  And what's wrong with it?  The alternatives
are either to treat the number as decimal or to flag an error.  Neither
seems better to me.

Brendan Eich
uiucdcs!uiuccsb!eich