Editorial: Simplify the |NumericLiteral| grammar #3096
Conversation
Refactor for more shared productions between number and bigint literals.
| CanonicalDecimalIntegerLiteral | ||
| NonOctalDecimalIntegerLiteral | ||
|
|
||
| CanonicalDecimalIntegerLiteral :: |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Might there be a better name than CanonicalDecimalIntegerLiteral? It makes me think “canonical numeric string”, which corresponds to neither a superset nor subset of the sequences this production matches.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Sure, suggestions welcome. But the similarity to "canonical numeric string" is intentional, and the two concepts do mostly agree where they intersect—not for power-of-two numbers large enough that Number::toString uses exponential notation, but I'm willing to chalk that up as a difference between canonicalized numeric strings vs. integer literals (numeric strings and integer literals already being distinct with respect to e.g. supporting _ separators).
There was a problem hiding this comment.
not for power-of-two numbers large enough that Number::toString uses exponential notation
Even without exponential notation, stuff beyond safe integer range won’t always be canonical in the CNS sense, right? For example the source text literal 9007199254740993 evaluates to the Number value whose canonical string representation is 9007199254740992.
the similarity to "canonical numeric string" is intentional
In that case, perhaps I’m alone in thinking the word might be misleading there, so unless others have an opinion it’s probably not worth changing.
Best reviewed by commit.