Re: Usage of \[oxdb]

[Michael Lazzaro]

On Wednesday, December 4, 2002, at 12:21  PM, Larry Wall wrote:

I think the general form is:

   \0o33      - octal
   \0x1b      - hex
   \0d123     - decimal
   \0b1001    - binary

\x and \o are then just shortcuts.

<snip>

The general form could be

   \0o[33]      - octal
   \0x[1b]      - hex
   \0d[123]     - decimal
   \0b[1001]    - binary

Or it could be

   \c[0o33]      - octal
   \c[0x1b]      - hex
   \c[0d123]     - decimal
   \c[0b1001]    - binary

I like that *a lot*, especially the change to square brackets.

\c[^H], for instance.  We can overload the \c notation to our heart's
desire, as long as we don't conflict with its use for named characters:

.... and that ...

There ain't no such thing as a "wide" character.  \xff is exactly
the same character as \x[ff].

.... and that, thank goodness.

I think that solves all the problems we're having. We change \c to have more flexible meanings, with \0o, \0x, \0d, \0b, \o, \x as shortcuts. Boom, we're done. Thanks!

MikeL