Why not used a tagged template literal, as in ``` base32`123EFG` ```
Bob On Mon, Oct 8, 2018 at 1:05 PM kdex <[email protected]> wrote: > 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_______________________________________________ > es-discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss >
_______________________________________________ es-discuss mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/es-discuss
