During the development of #3677, I followed the API doc for parse_f64_prefix as described, but I eventually found that something like "32.0 hellope" would return true, despite what the returns comment said. I thought this was a bug and saved it for later. When I started digging around, I got the sense that it was the documentation that was in error and not the procedure itself.
Of course, I then recalled that the name of the proc ends in _prefix.
I've fixed the documentation comment and added a test case to show that it's supposed to return true in that case. Hopefully this brings a bit of clarity to the situation.
During the development of #3677, I followed the API doc for
parse_f64_prefixas described, but I eventually found that something like "32.0 hellope" would return true, despite what thereturnscomment said. I thought this was a bug and saved it for later. When I started digging around, I got the sense that it was the documentation that was in error and not the procedure itself.Of course, I then recalled that the name of the proc ends in
_prefix.I've fixed the documentation comment and added a test case to show that it's supposed to return true in that case. Hopefully this brings a bit of clarity to the situation.