Re: [Jscheme-user] string->number problem

[Ken A. <kan...@bb...>]

What you say about string->number is the way i expected it to be have too.
parse-java-literal would be a good extension.  I think the code is now built in to InputPort.  This might be a good place to put it all together and fix other problems.

k

At 10:27 AM 5/30/2004 -0400, Jonathan A Rees wrote:
>This discussion wasn't clear to me but I assume you're going to have
>  (string->number "011" 8) => 9
>  (string->number "011" 10) => 11
>So the question is what to do about
>  (string->number "011")
>My vote as usual is when in doubt follow a Scheme report, because
>someone might consult a report when using jscheme.  If you want to
>have something to parse Java literal syntax, give it a different name;
>then you could sensibly extend it to other kinds of literals, e.g.
> (parse-java-literal "true") => #t
> (parse-java-literal "'t'") => #\t
> (parse-java-literal "\"true\"") => "true"
>But if the Java literal parser has to have the name string->number
>either for backward compatibility or to suit your taste, that's not
>terrible; I always give it an explicit radix anyhow.
>
>Jonathan
>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------
>This SF.Net email is sponsored by: Oracle 10g
>Get certified on the hottest thing ever to hit the market... Oracle 10g. 
>Take an Oracle 10g class now, and we'll give you the exam FREE.
>http://ads.osdn.com/?ad_id=3149&alloc_id=8166&op=click
>_______________________________________________
>Jscheme-user mailing list
>Jsc...@li...
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/jscheme-user