On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Again, I'm wondering if we're going about this wrong way -- perhaps we
need to go to more effort to save ^ as xor, and use something
different for hypers, like h<+> or h[+] or `+ or ~+ or ~~+, etc?
OK, I'm calling "Warnock's" on
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123- hex[also h:123?]
256:192.168.1.0 - base 256
(...etc...)
Could this be used to do explicit
Didn't I see an operator list a while back that featured sign-extending
shift?
If not, I apologize.
But on the other hand, we could make a ~>>> operator that was a
"case-preserving indent" :-)
=Austin
--- Larry Wall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
> : B
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the presence of the >>> operator
Er, *what* >>> operator?
: (and speaking of low-frequency operators, what about bitwise rotation?
: Will that be the (( and )) operators?)
I think those will be rejected by anyone who uses either vi or emacs.
Seri
At 12:37 AM +0200 10/29/02, Markus Laire wrote:
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
>On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>
>> explicit radix specifications for integers:
>> 0123- decimal
>> 2:01
I think that endian issues are abstracted from literals. The place it's
going to be an issue is the specifiers for pack/unpack or whatever
replaces them.
But the presence of the >>> operator (and speaking of low-frequency
operators, what about bitwise rotation? Will that be the (( and ))
operators
> What about specifying endiannes also, or would that be too low-level
> to even consider? Currently I don't have any examples for where it
> might even be used...
Literals are the wrong place to put that; they represent values, not
storage. Endianness should generally not be visible at the lan
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
> >On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> >
> >> explicit radix specifications for integers:
> >> 0123- decimal
> >> 2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
>
At 2:21 PM -0800 10/28/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
While we're at it, maybe we can add in 0rMCM to allow roman numerals too...
OK, see, the sad thing is that I really have no idea whether you're
joking or not. That's how wiggy this thread has gotten.
I am joking--it's defi
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex "123". I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now.
That x:123 part was my placeholder -- my bad, I forgot th
On 2002-10-28 at 16:54:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
> >The post that started this thread was a complaint about
> >leading 0 meaning octal - which is counterintuitive to everyone the
> >first time they come across it in C or Perl or Java or wherever.
>
> That's not entirely true. Granted the set of the
0x14 is questionably defined.
0X14 currently is an expression whose value is 14.
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex "123". I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now. (Is it a negative hexadecimal number, or
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:44, Mark J. Reed wrote:
> On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
> > [The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
> > > explicit radix specifications for integers:
> > > 0123- decimal
> > >2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
> > >
At 4:44 PM -0500 10/28/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
> explicit radix specifications for integers:
> 0123- decimal
>2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
>8:123
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
> [The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
> > explicit radix specifications for integers:
> > 0123- decimal
> >2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
> >8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
> >16:123
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
> explicit radix specifications for integers:
> 0123- decimal
>2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
>8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
>16:123- hex[also h:123?]
>256:192.168
$accumulator += +X10;
Looks like hex arithmetic.
=Austin
--- Michael Lazzaro <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Okay, take 4, with 'X' meaning xor, so you can see it in context. I
> warn ya, I'm gonna keep doing this until there's a "Final" version,
> for
> some value of "Final". ;-) Again, I
18 matches
Mail list logo
