Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> I'd be in favor of that, unless someone can come up with a compelling
> >> current use-case for octal literals.
I grew up talking octal, and while I'm still more comfortable in octal than
hex (newline to me is always going to be 012, not 0xA), even a
Martin v. Löwis wrote:
Jeff Shannon wrote:
I'd be in favor of that, unless someone can come up with a compelling
current use-case for octal literals.
Existing code. It may use octal numbers, and it would break if they
suddenly changed to decimal.
Right, which was my original point -- it was only
Jeff Shannon wrote:
I'd be in favor of that, unless someone can come up with a compelling
current use-case for octal literals.
Existing code. It may use octal numbers, and it would break if they
suddenly changed to decimal. Not only that - breakage would be *silent*,
i.e. the computations would j
Reinhold Birkenfeld wrote:
So what's the current state of the "universal-base-prefix" syntax?
Something like 10x10, 16xA and 8x12?
An interesting thought -- I like the consistency. On the other hand, I
have a hard time imagining that this is such a common need that it
requires syntactic support.
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 r
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 backwa
Jeff Shannon wrote:
John Roth wrote:
That's a reason, but I don't consider it a good reason.
I cannot, in fact, think of a single time when I've wanted
to enter an octal number. Hex numbers, yes, but not
octal.
[snip]
I would agree with you, but it's there for historical reasons.
[snip]
now that a
On Mon, 14 Mar 2005 14:12:40 -0800, Jeff Shannon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>John Roth wrote:
>
>>
>> "Charles Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
I know this isnt that big of a problem,
but i cannot think of one reason why they would not allow n
John Roth wrote:
"Charles Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know this isnt that big of a problem,
but i cannot think of one reason why they would not allow numbers
preceded with a 0 to have a number
higher then a 7 in them...
And it seems very inconsistant to
"Charles Hartman" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
I know this isnt that big of a problem,
but i cannot think of one reason why they would not allow numbers
preceded with a 0 to have a number
higher then a 7 in them...
And it seems very inconsistant to me...
Is there a
I know this isnt that big of a problem,
but i cannot think of one reason why they would not allow numbers
preceded with a 0 to have a number
higher then a 7 in them...
And it seems very inconsistant to me...
Is there a reason for this?
I *love* questions I can answer! Answer: because that's how y
11 matches
Mail list logo
