RFR 8134873: Implement support for ES6 numeric literals

[Sundararajan Athijegannathan]

+1

PS. After few more changesets are done, perhaps we should perhaps have 
"negative es6" tests. i.e., attempt es6 constructs in default es5 mode 
and expect syntax errors.

-Sundar

On 9/1/2015 8:35 PM, Andreas Woess wrote:
> Bikeshedding is welcomed :) I've uploaded a new webrev[1] with 
> s/BINARY_LITERAL/BINARY_NUMBER/ and an es6 flag in Lexer as suggested 
> by Sundar.
>
> [1] http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aw/8134873/webrev.01/
>
> Thanks,
> Andreas
>
> On 01/09/15 16:42, Attila Szegedi wrote:
>> - How about we use BINARY_NUMBER instead of BINARY_LITERAL? I know 
>> this is bikeshedding… It’s still more consisent with other literal 
>> token types (e.g. NULL and STRING) that don’t have the _LITERAL 
>> suffix. If we made it consistent the other way round, we’d have to 
>> have NULL_LITERAL, STRING_LITERAL, etc. Of course, we can just choose 
>> to live with the inconsistency and leave it as it is.
>>
>> - These literals should only be recognized with --language=es6, 
>> shouldn’t they? In the current form, it seems like the code will 
>> recognize them with es5 language too, won’t it?
>>
>> Attila.
>>
>>> On Sep 1, 2015, at 4:30 PM, Andreas Woess <andreas.woess at oracle.com> 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> Please reviewhttp://cr.openjdk.java.net/~aw/8134873/ 
>>> forhttps://bugs.openjdk.java.net/browse/JDK-8134873
>>>
>>> Implements Lexer/Parser support for ECMAScript 6 binary (0b) and 
>>> octal (0o) literals. I've renamed OCTAL (legacy octal literal, e.g. 
>>> 0777) to OCTAL_LEGACY and added OCTAL and BINARY_LITERAL token types 
>>> (the _LITERAL suffix is to disambiguate with TokenKind.BINARY).
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Andreas
>>>
>