Glenn Linderman wrote: > An excellant idea. I was unaware of that standard, but was trying to head that > direction in my last posting. > > Someone thought it wouldn't work with imaginary numbers, but there actually is > no ambiguity if the imaginary i must immediately follow the number, and the > metric suffix follow that, if both exist.
You're right, I was assuming that the imaginary i must be in the very end of literal, and was even thinking about using j instead. :) OK, that seems to be the nicest solution. So we have: 5G means 5 * 10**9, 5 giga 5Gi means 5 * 2**30, 5 gibi 5iG means 5 * 10**9 * i, 5i giga 5iGi means 5 * 2**30 * i, 5i gibi (I really like those binary prefixes names!) Very nice, unambiguous, compatible with SI standard, no need for any pragmas, I'm really impressed! - RaFaL Pocztarski, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
