Jeff Shannon wrote: > Steven Bethard wrote: > >> Jeff Shannon wrote: >> >>> now that almost the entire industry has standardized on power-of-2 >>> word sizes, octal is nearly useless but is still carried about for >>> backwards compatibility. >> >> So do you think it's worth lobbying for its removal in Python 3.0 when >> we can break some backwards compatibility? > > I'd be in favor of that, unless someone can come up with a compelling > current use-case for octal literals.
So what's the current state of the "universal-base-prefix" syntax? Something like 10x10, 16xA and 8x12? Or just use a different octal syntax like 0o10 (and introduce a similar one for binary literals, 0b1101000111)? Reinhold -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
