On 3 Sep, 14:26, Albert van der Horst <alb...@spenarnc.xs4all.nl> wrote: > In article <6031ba08-08c8-416b-91db-ce8ff57ae...@w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>, > James Harris <james.harri...@googlemail.com> wrote: > <SNIP> > > > > >So you are saying that Smalltalk has <base in decimal>r<number> where > >r is presumably for radix? That's maybe best of all. It preserves the > >syntactic requirement of starting a number with a digit and seems to > >have greatest flexibility. Not sure how good it looks but it's > >certainly not bad. > > > 0xff & 0x0e | 0b1101 > > 16rff & 16r0e | 2r1101 > > >Hmm. Maybe a symbol would be better than a letter. > > Like 0#ff 16#ff ?
Yes, that looks better. > That is ALGOL68. It is incredible how many of it has become > vindicated over time. (Yes, nineteen hundred sixty eight was > the year that language was conceived.) Yes, and its predecessor Algol 60 was a masterful advance in programming languages. It set up standards we still use today. James -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
