On 11/28/2002 6:47 PM, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 18:08, Richard Nuttall wrote:
Doesn't
my $x=16#0:14
give you 2 digits rather than 1 ?
Yes, but the first digit is 0. Or, more accurately, 0 * 16**2.
I'm going to go on the assumption that it was either late or early in
Richa
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 18:47, Bryan C. Warnock wrote:
> Yes, but the first digit is 0. Or, more accurately, 0 * 16**2.
Hmmph. Some accuracy. 0 * 16**1
--
Bryan C. Warnock
bwarnock@(gtemail.net|raba.com)
Jonathan Scott Duff wrote:
> BTW, is 256#2_3_4:255 legal? I vote no.
Correct: an underline may exist only between digits; technically, the
2,3 and 4 aren't digits; the two digits in the above are 234 and 255.
> I was under the impression that Perl6 would support bigints natively
> such that when
On Thu, 2002-11-28 at 18:08, Richard Nuttall wrote:
> James Mastros wrote:
>
> > On 11/27/2002 7:54 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
> >
> >> For example, the integer 30 can be written in base 16
> >> in two equivalent ways:
> >>
> >>my $x = 16#1D;
> >>my $x = 16#1:14;
> >>
> >> These two representat
James Mastros wrote:
On 11/27/2002 7:54 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be written in base 16
in two equivalent ways:
my $x = 16#1D;
my $x = 16#1:14;
These two representations are incompatible, so writing
something like C<16#D:13> will generate a compile-time
error
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 08:28:42PM -0500, James Mastros wrote:
> >This won't work for bases greater than 36, so we
> >have too:
> Grammar: I think this should be "so we also have:", or possibly "so we
> also have...".
The colon is more correct, the ellipsis means this is a quotation that
I've sho
On 11/27/2002 7:54 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
For example, the integer 30 can be written in base 16
in two equivalent ways:
my $x = 16#1D;
my $x = 16#1:14;
These two representations are incompatible, so writing
something like C<16#D:13> will generate a compile-time
error.
Ambiguity:
Is C equiv
Excellent document! Here are my comments, tabbed text is how I would
have written it:
On Thu, Nov 28, 2002 at 01:54:31AM +0100, Angel Faus wrote:
> The left portion of the C is the coefficient, and the right is the
> exponent,
The portion to the left of the C is the coefficient, and the
On Wed, Nov 27, 2002 at 02:26:08PM -0700, Luke Palmer wrote:
> Much nicer. This document holds together and makes more sense than
> the first (as it should). Nice work. A couple of corrections and
> nit-picks, though.
Indeed it is, much nicer.
>> This won't work for bases greater than 36, so
"Luke Palmer" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote
> > This notation is designed to let you write very large or
> > very small numbers efficiently. The left portion of the
> > C is the coefficient, and the right is the exponent,
> > so a number of the form C is actually intepreted
> > as C.
>
> Your "coeffic
> From: Angel Faus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 01:54:31 +0100
Much nicer. This document holds together and makes more sense than
the first (as it should). Nice work. A couple of corrections and
nit-picks, though.
> This notation is designed to let you write very large or
> ver
"Angel Faus" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Alphanumeric digits: Following the common practice,
> perl will interpret the A letter as the digit 10, the B
> letter as digit 11, and so on. Alphanumeric digits are case
> insensitive:
>
> 16#1E3A7 # base 16
> 16:1e3a5 # the
Hi,
This in an updated version of the numeric literals document. Hopefully
it is consistent with Michael's summary, and with discussions on the
list.
The portions that were wrong (complex numbers, etc..) have been
removed. Other parts (NaN, etc..) are still there, but I think that
they shou
13 matches
Mail list logo
