nanog mailing list archives
Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today
From: Dave Hart <davehart () gmail com>
Date: Wed, 14 Apr 2010 12:45:23 +0000
On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 09:20 UTC, Nick Hilliard wrote:
On 14/04/2010 08:06, Srinivas Chendi <sunny () apnic net> wrote to SANOG:014/8 223/8Sunny, Please be careful about how you write this. "014" is formally an octal representation, and what you've written there actually means that APNIC has received 12/8 (= octal 014). Nick
Nick, My eyebrow raised at the leading zero as well, but I'd call it ambiguous. 0x14 is unambiguously decimal 20, but 014 is only unambiguous in a context that defines leading zero as implying octal. For a C program relying on the runtime to convert text to numeric representation, it depends. sscanf("%d", &myint) will convert 014 to decimal 14, "%i" gets decimal 12. I personally hunt down and kill %i and other octal-assuming code when I see it, except where octal is conventional. To my eyes, 0xFF (or FF) screams "all bits lit" while 0377 (or 377) only hesitantly clears its throat. Moreover, I assume computers will be used by people who have never had reason to believe a leading zero implies base 8, and I find no joy in forcing them to learn that quirk of computing history. Take care, Dave Hart
Current thread:
- APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Skeeve Stevens (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Stephane Bortzmeyer (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Nick Hilliard (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Dave Hart (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Joe Abley (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Thomas Habets (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Vincent Hoffman (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Larry Sheldon (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Dave Hart (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Neil Harris (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Nick Hilliard (Apr 14)
- Re: APNIC Allocated 14/8, 223/8 today Stephane Bortzmeyer (Apr 14)