> > Funny, I had a similar idea today in the shower (always the best place > > to think :-). I'm not sure exactly how it would work yet -- > > currently, literals are converted to values at compile-time, so the > > registry would have to be available to the compiler, but the concept > > seems to make more sense if it is available and changeable at runtime. > > True, but deferring the conversion to runtime (by e.g. using > literal descriptors ;-) would cause a significant slowdown. > > So, I believe that the compiler would have be told before starting > the compile process or within the process by looking at some magical > constant/comment in the source code (I think that this ought to be > a per-file overrideable setting, since some code may simply fail > to work if it suddenly starts to work with different types). This may be the first place where a 'directive' statement actually makes sense to me. > > Nevertheless, we should keep this in mind. > > I could reformat the above into a PEP or Michael could simply > the idea as section to his PEP. I'm not optimistic about Michael's PEP. He seems to insist on a total separation between decimal and binary numbers that I don't believe can work. I haven't replied to him yet because I can't explain it well enough yet -- but I don't believe there's much of a future in his particular idea. --Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)
RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue
Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo
HTML:
3.2
| Encoding:
UTF-8
| Version:
0.7.4