On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:11:01PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote: : 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
The lack of base 4 numbers in Real Life seems to me to justify the convention. Do you have a use case? Larry
