-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Nov 17 2010, at 05:16 , Larry Wall wrote: > 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?
Real Life on Earth is base-4 coded :-p FYI we already have :4<12301230> which is ALREADY supported. If you want to use ACGT instead, just apply grammar or tr... hey, do we have tr/// equivalent already? Dan the Base-4 Coded Creature -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (Darwin) iEYEARECAAYFAkzi+RoACgkQErJia/WXtBvXUACfeqzcxEpkEL5SrPgcwAwkYK+t LhwAni5fE4lADkIkp/wHgXWZm65FYJco =1QQG -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
