From: Luke Palmer [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > From: Martin D Kealey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > 10:1.2.3:4.5:6 == 123450000 > > 2:1:1:1110 == 0x6000 > > 60:22.0.-27::-2 == 21.9925 > > I've always wanted to meet The Devil. :) > > Honestly, I can't tell by looking at that what those are supposed to > mean. And I'm not putting any numbers that ugly into my Perl soup. > Perl 6 is trying to I<decrease> obfuscation.
I believe with the recent /:/#/g and /\./:/g change, the suggestion would be: 10#1:2:3:4:5#6 == 123450000 2#1:1#1110 == 0x6000 60#22:0.27#2 == 21.9925 Though I'd suggest making different things look different and using something else for exponentiation... Perhaps something unicode like: ¿ (upside-down '?') or similar just to make it difficult... 10#1:2:3:4:5¿6 == 123450000 2#1:1¿1110 == 0x6000 60#22:0.27¿2 == 21.9925 > My opinion: don't allow floating point arbitrary radix. It's uncommon > enough that it could be done with a module. It would be trivial with > a grammar munge. guess who wrote: > > Note that > > 256#0.253.254.255 # base 256 > > is trying to call the 254 method on 256#0.253, since > you can only have one radix point. -- Garrett Goebel IS Development Specialist ScriptPro Direct: 913.403.5261 5828 Reeds Road Main: 913.384.1008 Mission, KS 66202 Fax: 913.384.2180 www.scriptpro.com [EMAIL PROTECTED]
