010 is 8 and not 10 :(

[karthikbalaguru]

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(
};

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

Thx,
Karthik Balaguru

[Ian Collins]

karthikbalaguru wrote:

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(
};

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

Such as?

The convention goes back a long way and is never likely to change.

--
Ian Collins.

[Richard Bos]

karthikbalaguru <ka************ ***@gmail.comwr ote:

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

No shit, Sherlock. This is how C is, and always has been. Deal.

Richard

[karthikbalaguru]

On Sep 13, 12:40 pm, karthikbalaguru <karthikbalagur [e-mail]>
wrote:

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(
};

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

Thx,
Karthik Balaguru

It should be : (No comma in the earlier snapshot of code)

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010 // This is treated as 8 and not as 10 :
( Strange :(:(
};

Thx,
Karthik Balaguru

[Martin Ambuhl]

karthikbalaguru wrote:

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Exactly as defined by the language.

>
Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(

No it's not. Anyone who was awake during the first day of their lessons
in C knows that integers represented by 0 followed by digits are octal
and integers represented by 0x or 0X followed by digits are hex.
But some people don't stay awake in class or read their textbooks and
then call the obvious strange.

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

You were shocked by what you should have known, had you not been
comatose. How strange.

>
This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

That things are just fine as they are, as long as you don't ever get a
programming job, or at least until your attention span grows to, say, 15
seconds.

[Philip Potter]

karthikbalaguru wrote:

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(
};

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

If you find that this is a problem, there are editors which highlight octal
constants (such as 010) in a different colour to decimal constants (such as 10)
to make it obvious that it means something different.

Philip

--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac. uk

[karthikbalaguru]

On Sep 13, 1:55 pm, Philip Potter <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote:

karthikbalaguru wrote:

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(
};

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

If you find that this is a problem, there are editors which highlight octal
constants (such as 010) in a different colour to decimal constants (such as 10)
to make it obvious that it means something different.

Philip

--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac. uk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats a coool idea to avoid mistakes without requesting a change in C
Language.
Thx.

Karthik Balaguru

[Mark Bluemel]

karthikbalaguru wrote:

On Sep 13, 1:55 pm, Philip Potter <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote:

>karthikbalagur u wrote:

>>Hi,
I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

>If you find that this is a problem, there are editors which highlight octal
constants (such as 010) in a different colour to decimal constants (such as 10)
to make it obvious that it means something different.

Thats a coool idea to avoid mistakes without requesting a change in C
Language.

I think you should request the change, just to see what response you get...

[Chris Hills]

In article <11************ *********@o80g2 000hse.googlegr oups.com>,
karthikbalaguru <ka************ ***@gmail.comwr ites

>On Sep 13, 1:55 pm, Philip Potter <[e-mail].i nvalidwrote:

>karthikbalagur u wrote:

Hi,

I find that numbers beginning with a zero are evaluated in base 8.

Example -
int numbers[] = { 001,
010, // This is treated as 8 and
not as 10 :( Strange :(:(
};

I find that compiler does not complain and continues performing after
converting the octal to the corresponding decimal value :(:(.
Initially i was shocked , But later practised to it.

This option of '0' before a number to treat it as octal in C causes
problem sometimes(Easy path for error) .
Octal, we just have a 0 infront of the number in 'C' .
There should be someother convention ? What do you think ?

If you find that this is a problem, there are editors which highlight octal
constants (such as 010) in a different colour to decimal constants
(such as 10)
to make it obvious that it means something different.

Philip

--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac. uk- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Thats a coool idea to avoid mistakes without requesting a change in C
Language.
Thx.

Karthik Balaguru

1
"cool" wasn't cool the first time it was in fashion 40 years ago. I
remind my "cool" sons about that. "Man" and "dude" are also back.
Nostalgia isn't etc... :-)

2
Syntax highlighting has been around almost as long as colour monitors.
(About 25 years.) Strangely that is no recognised standard for colour
highlighting.

3
Octal constants have always been in the C language. If you did not know
that you need a BASIC course in C programming.

4
Many coding standards ban the use of Octal constants

5
0.123 is a FLOAT not an Octal number :-)

6
Request for change in C language denied

--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
/\/\/ ch***@phaedsys. org www.phaedsys.org \/\/\
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

[Philip Potter]

Chris Hills wrote:

In article <11************ *********@o80g2 000hse.googlegr oups.com>,
karthikbalaguru <ka************ ***@gmail.comwr ites

>Thats a coool idea to avoid mistakes without requesting a change in C
Language.
Thx.

Karthik Balaguru

1
"cool" wasn't cool the first time it was in fashion 40 years ago. I
remind my "cool" sons about that. "Man" and "dude" are also back.
Nostalgia isn't etc... :-)

Strange, I can't find any reference to "cool" in the C standard. It must be a
compiler extension on his platform :)

2
Syntax highlighting has been around almost as long as colour monitors.
(About 25 years.) Strangely that is no recognised standard for colour
highlighting.

Yes, but some syntax highlighters do not distinguish octal constants from
decimal constants. The OP may have this problem.

3
Octal constants have always been in the C language. If you did not know
that you need a BASIC course in C programming.

Or perhaps he forgot? Quite reasonable for a beginner; he might have read the
relevant section, but since octal constants are so rarely used there's little to
back up the learning process. I only really remember about octal constants
because my editor colours them in.

5
0.123 is a FLOAT not an Octal number :-)

Actually, it's a double. 0.123f is a float.

--
Philip Potter pgp <atdoc.ic.ac. uk