For the record, should we want to remove the option of having a (possible second) minus sign after the radix specification, the expression
self peekSignIsMinus ifTrue: [ neg := neg not ].
should be removed from NumberParser>>#nextNumber and #nextInteger
But I haven't tested this.
Some unit tests might fail since this 'feature' seems to be supported explicitly.
> On 15 Jan 2020, at 17:38, ducasse <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>
>
>
>> On 15 Jan 2020, at 14:30, Sven Van Caekenberghe <
[hidden email]> wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I came across the following quirk that surprised me.
>>
>> Positive number in a arbitrary radix
>>
>> 16rA = 10
>>
>> Same number but negative
>>
>> -16rA = -10
>>
>> I guess, we all know that.
>>
>> However, the following is also possible
>>
>> 16r-A = -10
>
> I would not support this one either
>>
>> I did not know that, but OK.
>>
>> But what about this one ?
>>
>> -16r-A = 10
>>
>> I understand that the double negation is positive again,
>> but do we really want to support such a syntax ?
>
> I would not
>
>>
>> Sven
Locked
