Bug cleanup: unify on allowing radices from 2 to 36 in

lib/core/num.dart

Index: lib/core/num.dart
diff --git a/lib/core/num.dart b/lib/core/num.dart
index 2b3e263a8be8d79aef642efba47b5cc5cfd215ba..455661c365c2da84c4d7c300cdd6dd2ece768d29 100644
--- a/lib/core/num.dart
+++ b/lib/core/num.dart
@@ -1,4 +1,4 @@
-// Copyright (c) 2011, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file
+// Copyright (c) 2012, the Dart project authors.  Please see the AUTHORS file
 // for details. All rights reserved. Use of this source code is governed by a
 // BSD-style license that can be found in the LICENSE file.
 
@@ -40,5 +40,11 @@ abstract class num implements Comparable, Hashable {
   abstract String toStringAsFixed(int fractionDigits);
   abstract String toStringAsExponential(int fractionDigits);
   abstract String toStringAsPrecision(int precision);
+
+  /**
+   * Converts the [num] to an [int] using [toInt] and then converts to

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2012/09/19 11:43:54]

Could we make this comment start with a single-line summary (which will be shown
in apidoc overviews).
The current sentence is a little too long for that.
Perhaps move the part about converting using [toInt] to a subsequent sentence.

[Mads Ager (google), 2012/09/19 14:16:13]

Yes, changed to have a one-liner followed by a longer explanation.

+   * a string representation with the given [radix]. Radix 2 to 36 are
+   * supported.

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2012/09/19 11:43:54]

Either say that the radix must be in the supported range (the "must" implictly
saying that we'll throw an IllegalArgumentException or similar if it doesn't
satisfy this requirement) or write explictly that (and what) we throw if it's
not in the supported range.

Write that we use lower-case letters for digits above '9'.
(Since you test that they are lower-case, it should be documented).

[Mads Ager (google), 2012/09/19 14:16:13]

Done.

+   */

[Lasse Reichstein Nielsen, 2012/09/19 11:43:54]

Ok for now. I'm considering whether it really belongs on int instead of num.

[Mads Ager (google), 2012/09/19 14:16:13]

Yes, I agree. I think we should use it to int in a follow-up change.

   abstract String toRadixString(int radix);
 }