Is 0 a decimal integer?

[Steven T. Hatton]

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody disagree? If you do agree
with me, then what do you think it is?
--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell

[benben]

Doesn't 0 mathematically mean 0 (zero, null, nil) in decimal, binary,
hexadecimal, etc whatever number system you can devise?

Ben

[Steven T. Hatton]

benben wrote:

Doesn't 0 mathematically mean 0 (zero, null, nil) in decimal, binary,
hexadecimal, etc whatever number system you can devise?

Ben

I'm speaking strictly in lexical terms. How would a C++ grammarian classify
0? I believe you are correct regarding semantics.

--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell

[Ron Natalie]

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody disagree? If you do agree
with me, then what do you think it is?

A naked 0 is a octal-literal according to the C++ standard.
A decimimal literal is a single non-zero digit followed
by zero or more digits.

[Steven T. Hatton]

Ron Natalie wrote:

Steven T. Hatton wrote:

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody disagree? If you do
agree with me, then what do you think it is?

A naked 0 is a octal-literal according to the C++ standard.
A decimimal literal is a single non-zero digit followed
by zero or more digits.

It's probably a completely pointless observation, but that's also how I
understood §2.13.1.
--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell

[M.Pfeifer]

"Steven T. Hatton" <ch********@germania.sup> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:lK********************@speakeasy.net...

benben wrote:

Doesn't 0 mathematically mean 0 (zero, null, nil) in decimal, binary,
hexadecimal, etc whatever number system you can devise?

Ben
I'm speaking strictly in lexical terms. How would a C++ grammarian

classify 0? I believe you are correct regarding semantics.

You have to use a type qualifier. So it depends on you.

I think

(char) 0

would be valid as well. But I didn't check it.

Matthias

[Starfox]

As much as I think this is pointless, this might solve the argument,
sort of:

std::cout << typeid(0).name();

[Steven T. Hatton]

Starfox wrote:

As much as I think this is pointless, this might solve the argument,
sort of:

std::cout << typeid(0).name();

Not really, because an octal integer literal will result in the creation of
a temporary of type int.
--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell

[Jack Klein]

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:38:41 -0400, "Steven T. Hatton"
<ch********@germania.sup> wrote in comp.lang.c++:

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody disagree? If you do agree
with me, then what do you think it is?

I think you are wasting the group's time playing with silly newbie
exercises. Suppose some particular compiler gets it wrong, and parses
it as a decimal literal. How could you tell the difference?

--
Jack Klein
Home: http://JK-Technology.Com
FAQs for
comp.lang.c http://www.eskimo.com/~scs/C-faq/top.html
comp.lang.c++ http://www.parashift.com/c++-faq-lite/
alt.comp.lang.learn.c-c++
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~a...FAQ-acllc.html

[Steven T. Hatton]

Jack Klein wrote:

On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 06:38:41 -0400, "Steven T. Hatton"
<ch********@germania.sup> wrote in comp.lang.c++:

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody disagree? If you do
agree with me, then what do you think it is?

I think you are wasting the group's time playing with silly newbie
exercises. Suppose some particular compiler gets it wrong, and parses
it as a decimal literal. How could you tell the difference?

..

--
If our hypothesis is about anything and not about some one or more
particular things, then our deductions constitute mathematics. Thus
mathematics may be defined as the subject in which we never know what we
are talking about, nor whether what we are saying is true.-Bertrand Russell

[Tescobar]

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody
disagree? If you do agree
with me, then what do you think it is?

In my opinion, naked zero must be a separate lexical token (from compilers
point of view).
If not, why is it possible to initialize pointers
by zero:

some_type* p=0;

//or something like this:

class a
{
some_type* pointer;
a(): pointer(0) {}
};

Initializing pointers by integral value is
not permitted; you cant write pointer(13).
Long time ago there existed something like
NULL, which is now depreciated in ANSI c++.
Instead of that you use 0 - so it must be
something different than any integral number
(regardless of octal, decimal, hex, etc).

O.C.

[Ron Natalie]

Tescobar wrote:

I say no, 0 is _not_ a decimal literal. Anybody
disagree? If you do agree
with me, then what do you think it is?

In my opinion, naked zero must be a separate lexical token (from compilers
point of view).

It is not. It is an octal integer literal. If not, why is it possible to initialize pointers
by zero:

some_type* p=0;

Because the standard says that a null pointer constant is
a constant integer expression evaluating to zero. It doesn't
have to the 0 token. It can be any constant integer expression
with value zero:

some_type* p = 3-3;

is perfectly valid.