On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote: > [The below is actually from Larry, not Michael] > > explicit radix specifications for integers: > > 0123 - decimal > > 2:0110 - binary [also b:0110?] > > 8:123 - octal [also o:123?] > > 16:123 - hex [also h:123?] > > 256:192.168.1.0 - base 256 > > (...etc...) The post that started this thread was a complaint about leading 0 meaning octal - which is counterintuitive to everyone the first time they come across it in C or Perl or Java or wherever. So yes, as indicated by the first line above, if this proposal were to be adopted (and again, it's just Larry thinking out loud), 0123 would be 123 decimal, not 123 octal = 83 decimal.
However I don't see any reason not to allow 0x as a synonym for 16: (or 16# or whatever the radix syntax would be). -- Mark REED | CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754
