[issue26490] Leading “0” allowed, only for decimal zero

Changes by Berker Peksag : -- superseder: -> Deprecate 0 as a synonym for 0 ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing l

[issue26490] Leading “0” allowed, only for decimal zero

Ben Finney added the comment: > rationale unknown That's quite a pity. The inconsistency catches people out, and the docs do not make clear why an exception is made. > but any number of zeroes is still unambiguously zero. Of course. But the same is true for “0003 is unambiguously three”, yet

[issue26490] Leading “0” allowed, only for decimal zero

Ethan Furman added the comment: Short answer: rationale unknown, but any number of zeroes is still unambiguously zero. Closing as duplicate. -- nosy: +ethan.furman resolution: -> duplicate stage: -> resolved status: open -> closed ___ Python trac

[issue26490] Leading “0” allowed, only for decimal zero

Steven D'Aprano added the comment: This was raised and rejected here: http://bugs.python.org/issue24668 -- nosy: +steven.daprano ___ Python tracker ___ _

[issue26490] Leading “0” allowed, only for decimal zero

New submission from Ben Finney: The language reference carves out a special case for decimal zero literals: they may have leading “0” digits. Non-zero decimal literals may not. This is apparently deliberate: Note that leading zeros in a non-zero decimal number are not allowed. This is for