domenic at domenicdenicola.com (2014-08-15T22:48:05.058Z)
On Aug 6, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > If the intent is to eventually permit leading 0 numbers as decimal literals, why forbid unambiguous numbers like `01`–`07` in the meantime? It could be done, but it would be a more complicated specification. I still waiting for somebody to step up and volunteer to write a first draft of a spec. update.
On Aug 6, 2014, at 12:02 PM, Chris Peterson wrote: > > On Aug 5, 2014, at 11:13 AM, Allen Wirfs-Brock <allen at wirfs-brock.com> wrote: > > > > I think this is more or less the strategy we should follow. > > > > All browsers in all modes apparently interpret leading 0 numbers that contain the digits "8" or "9" as decimal literals. We should make that part of the base language for ES6. > > > > The ES6 base language should make leading 0 numbers containing only octal digits ("1"-"7") syntactically illegal. > > If the intent is to eventually permit leading 0 numbers as decimal literals, why forbid unambiguous numbers like `01`–`07` in the meantime? It could be done, but it would be a more complicated specification. I still waiting for somebody to step up and volunteer to write a first draft of a spec. update. Allen > > Many of the websites broken by Firefox's new DecimalIntegerLiteral error are processing dates like `new Date(2014, 08, 06)`. Permitting `00`–`09` (with any number of leading zeros) but forbidding ambiguous `01234567` would be forward-compatible with your plan to eventually permit leading zeros while not breaking websites using Dates today. > > Whether `01234568` would be permitted as decimal 1234568 is a subtler question. > _______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > es-discuss at mozilla.org > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >