On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 09:47 -0800, Josiah Carlson wrote: > I hope I'm not the only one who thinks that "simple is better than > complex", at least when it comes to numeric constants. Certainly it > would be _convenient_ to express constants in a radix other than decimal, > hexidecimal, or octal, but to me, it all looks like noise.
As a Unix weenie and occasional bit twiddler, I've had needs for octal, hex, and binary literals. +1 for coming up with a common syntax for these. -1 on removing any way to write octal literals. The proposal for something like 0xff, 0o664, and 0b1001001 seems like the right direction, although 'o' for octal literal looks kind of funky. Maybe 'c' for oCtal? (remember it's 'x' for heXadecimal). -Barry
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
