Am 29.11.2010 00:01, schrieb Alexander Belopolsky:
On Sun, Nov 28, 2010 at 5:56 PM, "Martin v. Löwis" firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: ..
This definition fails long before we get beyond 127-th code point:
What do infer from that? That the definition is wrong, or the code is wrong?
The development version of the reference manual is more detailed, but as far as I can tell, it still defines digit as 0-9.
I wasn't asking about 0..9, but about "infinity". According to the spec, it shouldn't accept that (and neither should it accept 'infinitY'). However, whether that's a spec bug or an implementation bug - it seems like a minor issue to me (i.e. easily fixed).