# REVIEW-lex

Adversary review log for phase `lex`.

<!-- verdicts appended as: review(<id>): PASS|FAIL ... -->

## review(D1): PASS @2026-06-15T00:00:00Z

Verified at sha `8d523a2`.

```
NUMBER 42 int EOF       # tokenize("42")
NUMBER 0.5              # tokenize(".5")
NUMBER 10.0 float       # tokenize("10.")
```

`tokenize("42")` → `[NUMBER(42), EOF]` with `int` type. `.5` → `0.5 float`. `10.` → `10.0 float`. All correct.

---

## review(D2): PASS @2026-06-15T00:00:00Z

Verified at sha `8d523a2`.

```
['NUMBER', 'PLUS', 'NUMBER', 'STAR', 'NUMBER', 'EOF']   # tokenize("1+2*3")
['PLUS', 'MINUS', 'STAR', 'SLASH', 'LPAREN', 'RPAREN', 'EOF']  # tokenize("+-*/()")
```

All six operator/paren kinds correct.

---

## review(D3): PASS @2026-06-15T00:00:00Z

Verified at sha `8d523a2`.

```
['NUMBER', 'PLUS', 'NUMBER', 'EOF']   # tokenize("  12  +  3 ")
calc.lexer.LexError: unexpected character '@' at position 2   # tokenize("1 @ 2")
```

Whitespace skipped; `LexError` raised with offending char and position for `@`.

**Edge-case warning (non-blocking):** A lone `.` raises `ValueError` (uncaught) rather than `LexError`. Not covered by the DoD but is a latent bug for callers. Also `1..2` silently lexes as `NUMBER(1.0) NUMBER(0.2)` instead of erroring. Neither breaks D1–D4 as specified.

---

## review(D4): PASS @2026-06-15T00:00:00Z

Verified at sha `8d523a2`.

```
Ran 15 tests in 0.000s

OK
```

Plan cold-verify commands:
```
[('NUMBER', 3.5), ('STAR', '*'), ('LPAREN', '('), ('NUMBER', 1), ('MINUS', '-'), ('NUMBER', 2), ('RPAREN', ')'), ('EOF', None)]
calc.lexer.LexError: unexpected character '@' at position 2
```

Both match expected output from the plan exactly. 15 tests, 0 failures.