I agree that octal should still have a syntax. However, as you say, 0o
doesn't jump out as much typographically. And I'm wary of adding
arbitrary base literals to the language. It sounds like unnecessary
complexity, though a standard library function to convert arbitrary base
representations of ints to ints might be useful.
At any rate, I'd like to propose the octal syntax:
0c123
I like this because "0c" looks like the start of the word "octal", and,
as with your suggestion, the 0[character-here] prefix makes for a nice
symmetry with "0x" for hex.
- Chris Rebert
Greg Ewing wrote:
> Josiah Carlson wrote:
>
>> Do we deprecate it followed by a later removal (so as to "resist the
>> temptation to guess")? If so, sounds good to me (I've never had a use
>> for octal literals).
>
> I think that *some* syntax should be provided for octal
> literals. They're useful when you're translating constants
> from a C header file that are expressed in octal. I'd
> suggest
>
> 0o123
>
> except that the lower case 'o' might be a bit hard
> to spot. :-(
>
> Maybe something more general could be used to
> indicate a number base, such as
>
> 1101(2) # binary
> 1234(8) # octal
> 1c3a(16) # hexadecimal
> 12g7(35) # why stop at 16?
>
> Since calling a built-in integer never makes sense,
> this would be unambiguous.
>
> > Making them decimal instead, I think, would be a
> > mistake.
>
> Perhaps an all-digits literal with a leading zero
> should be disallowed altogether. That ought to
> prevent any accidents.
>
> --
> Greg
> _______________________________________________
> Python-3000 mailing list
> Python-3000@python.org
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
> Unsubscribe:
> http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/cvrebert%40gmail.com
>
_______________________________________________
Python-3000 mailing list
Python-3000@python.org
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-3000
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-3000/archive%40mail-archive.com
