Carl Mäsak wrote:
Darren (>):
While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific to
base-4 that complements the 4 that we have now for bases 2,8,16,10.

You're joking, right?

No, its a serious idea, just not so conventional. -- Darren Duncan

Reply via email to