on 03.02.2006 00:16 Delaney, Timothy (Tim) said the following: > 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.
Let me throw something into the arena :-) I know there should only be one way to do it, but what about requiring a leading 0 for any 'special' number format, and then allow:: 0x1AFFE and:: 016r1AFFE 02r010001000101001 08r1234567 and maybe have 0b be a synonym of 02r, and some other nice character (o/c) for octals. For backwards compatibility you could even allow classic octal literals, though I think it would be better to have a Syntax Error for any literal starting with 0 but missing a radix code. cheers _______________________________________________ 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
