Sorry, but I highly doubt that it's worth reserving syntax for two bases for which even the author suggests their lesser usefulness.
This is best kept in user-space. Base-4 numbers should already be covered by
this[1] proposal.
As for base 32, Carsten has already pointed out the problem of non-unique
encodings (and this is true for every radix greater than 10).
If (your specific encoding of) base-32 literals were to be implemented in
user-space, I think we could get away with extensible string literals, i.e.
something akin to:
```js
const base32 = string => { /* … */ };
console.log("10"_base32); // logs 32
```
[1] https://github.com/tc39/proposal-extended-numeric-literals
On Monday, October 8, 2018 2:51:04 AM CEST Shaun Moss wrote:
> Hi all
>
> I'm new to the list so please forgive me if I breach etiquette.
>
> I have drafted a proposal for addition to the ES spec:
> https://github.com/mossy2100/ecmascript/blob/master/base4and32literals.md
>
> If anyone has a few spare minutes, I'd be grateful if you could please give
> it a quick look over. I'd really appreciate any feedback on how to improve
> or advance it. I haven't looked into implementation details yet but I will
> soon.
>
> Thank you
> Shaun
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
