James Harris wrote:
On 24 Aug, 09:05, Erik Max Francis <m...@alcyone.com> wrote:
Here's another suggested number literal format. First, keep the
familar 0x and 0b of C and others and to add 0t for octal. (T is the
third letter of octal as X is the third letter of hex.) The numbers
above would be
0b1011, 0t7621, 0xc26b
Second, allow an arbitrary number base by putting base and number in
quotes after a zero as in
0"2:1011", 0"8:7621", 0"16:c26b"
Why not just put the base first, followed by the value in quotes:
2"1011", 8"7621", 16"c26b"
It's always a bit impressive how syntax suggestions get more and more
involved and, if you'll forgive me for saying, ridiculous as the
conversation continues. This is starting to get truly nutty.
Why do you say that here? MRAB's suggestion is one of the clearest
there has been. And it incorporates the other requirements: starts
with a digit, allows an appropriate alphabet, has no issues with
spacing digit groups, shows clearly where the number ends and could
take an exponent suffix.
In your opinion. Obviously not in others. Which is pretty obviously
what I meant, so the rhetorical question is a bit weird here.
There's a reason that languages designed by committee end up horrific
nightmares.
--
Erik Max Francis && m...@alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
Do not seek death. Death will find you.
-- Dag Hammarskjold
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
