On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 19:09 +0000, M J Fleming wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:35:14PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote:
> > The proposal for something like 0xff, 0o664, and 0b1001001 seems like
> > the right direction, although 'o' for octal literal looks kind of funky.
> > Maybe 'c' for oCtal? (remember it's 'x' for heXadecimal).
> >
> > -Barry
> >
>
> +1
+1 too.
It seems like a "least changes" way to fix the IMHO strange 0123 != 123
behaviour.
Any sort of arbitrary base syntax is overkill; decimal, hexadecimal,
octal, and binary cover 99.9% of cases. The 0.1% of other cases are very
special, and can use int("LITERAL",base=RADIX).
For me, binary is far more useful than octal, so I'd be happy to let
octal languish as legacy support, but I definitely want "0b10110101".
--
Donovan Baarda <abo at minkirri.apana.org.au>
http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/
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