On Fri, 3 Feb 2006 10:16:17 +1100, "Delaney, Timothy (Tim)" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Andrew Koenig wrote:
>
>>> I definately agree with the 0c664 octal literal. Seems rather more
>>> intuitive.
>>
>> I still prefer 8r664.
>
>The more I look at this, the worse it gets. Something beginning with
>zero (like 0xFF, 0c664) immediately stands out as "unusual". Something
>beginning with any other digit doesn't. This just looks like noise to
>me.
>
>I found the suffix version even worse, but they're blown out of the
>water anyway by the fact that FFr16 is a valid identifier.
>
Are you sure you aren't just used to the x in 0xff? I.e., if the leading
0 were just an alias for 16, we could use 8x664 instead of 8r664.
BTW Ada uses radix prefix, but with # separating the prefix, so we can't use
that.
How about apostrophe as separator?
8'664 # or the suffix version could work also, although you'd have to
back out of some names:
664'8
bee'16
Regards,
Bengt Richter
_______________________________________________
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
