in reply to Re^10: why are hex values not numbers?
in thread why are hex values not numbers?

I'm simply saying...

That after 22 years of Perl5, you've invented a requirement no else needs, and are completely impervious to reason.

My prediction: This won't change any time soon -- not this year nor next -- but you'll keep banging on about it for another week or two -- like you did about Unicode in code blocks -- until you find another windmill to tilt at.

I ignored your last post, then comes this one. Now you're added to my ignore list.

With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority". I knew I was on the right track :)
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^12: why are hex values not numbers?
by perl-diddler (Chaplain) on Sep 29, 2016 at 06:01 UTC
    That after 22 years of Perl5, you've invented a requirement no else needs, and are completely impervious to reason.
    Impervious to reason? What reason has anyone given to the question of why a hex constant (e.g. 0xa0) shouldn't be able to be converted in any place perl auto-converts a decimal number?

    Requirement? If I was adding a restriction or forcing someone to use the feature, it would be a requirement -- but right now, it's something that doesn't work -- so no one is using it. If it was adopted, then still no one would be required to use it. In no way can it be considered a "requirement" that people would need to follow.

    Extending privileges or options, to people, is never something that is "required".

    Requirements are things forced upon people. In contrast, options are things people have a choice to do or not.

      Impervious to reason? Yes. This thread is full of reasons, and you've ignored them all. Not even attempting to counter argue, just ignored them. You're like a child: I want! I want!

      Requirement? Yes. An industry standard term, that you obviously have no knowledge of, which explains a lot.

      What reason has anyone given to the question of why a hex constant (e.g. 0xa0) shouldn't be able It is not that it could not be done, it is that there is no good reason to do it.

      And the potential for silent failures, where a non-number that would now look like a hex or octal number, is accidentally used in a numeric context, that would currently warn loudly, is too high a price to pay for something you think would be nice to have even if nobody needs it or would use it.

        This thread gave no valid reason. Or are you claiming that my asking for rational, logical support in the form of reasoning or reasons, that such is a child-like behavior. This is a not a nursery school. Isn't it supposed to be a place where we can have technological discussions? It seems asking for references or valid & consistent reasons valid in computer science.

        Requirement? You claim I don't know what the word means, yet like a petulant child, you say "And I'm not gonna tell ya." You can't define your terms in a technical forum? Then don't claim to know them or claim to be capable of judging others' use of the them.

        There is a good reason to do it: compatibility with any other language -- in places where other languages allow decimal input (usually at the source level, though also at runtime in interpreted languages), they also allow hex, and, usually octal at the minimum. Perl stands alone in not being able to convert a hex constant in a string when it CAN convert a decimal in the same place.

        Potential for silently getting a '0' value for bad-source code? What more do you want? Show me anyplace in CPAN where the person put "0x" in front of a string of hex digits, and they didn't mean that they wanted a hex string.

        You are talking about a error in the first place and second, it's a very unlikely error, one I doubt you can find an example for, but if you needed such pickiness, you could have 'lint' complain about such cases. You shouldn't use it as the only reason to block a feature that makes the language easier for others.

        This is why perl is dying a slow death -- because no one will support any common sense changes that make things *easier* for new people coming to the language. Instead, the things that do get approved are pinning tails on vars, that, of any method of allowing forced-typing, is the most verbose and most cryptic looking. So much so, that I know no other mainstream language that uses such a syntax (may be out there, but I've not seen such). It won't help outsiders understand perl -- just create more confusion.