Example/use case for separators within octal integer literal?

[mathiasbynens]

https://github.com/tc39/proposal-numeric-separator#octal-literal mentions that separators in legacy octal integer literals (e.g. 01234567) are not supported, but it fails to mention that the proposal does support separators in (non-legacy) octal integer literals, e.g. 0o123456, and it doesn’t give an example nor does it motivate the use case.

Can this be clarified + an example be added please? I’m struggling to think of a use case for separators in octal integer literals. Where would it make sense to even put the separators?

[Xyncgas]

hahahahaha

[leobalter]

@mathiasbynens we have a few examples now after #48, but there is not much of a clarification, I admit.

I'd say separators are conventionally available in all non-legacy numeric literal representations, including BigInt and I remember that was an expressed intention. While it goes less specific for why we do support octal integer literals, we basically don't make it a special case to exclude the separators. Does it sound fair enough to you?

[leobalter]

I added a quick paragraph here 37afbd8

Please reopen this if it's not enough. Feel free to ping me so we can try to improve it.

[mathiasbynens]

If the rationale is “we add new features to all non-legacy numeric literal types” that sounds good to me. It would be good to capture that in the readme.

[leobalter]

I just noticed I committed the changes in the file before saving it in my editor. Oops.

It's now fixed w/ examples to BigInt literals. Please, let me know if there is anything else I could improve there at this moment.