On 13 October 2016 at 12:05, Cory Benfield <c...@lukasa.co.uk> wrote: > > integer & 0x00FFFFFF # Hex > integer & 16777215 # Decimal > integer & 0o77777777 # Octal > integer & 0b111111111111111111111111 # Binary > > The octal representation is infuriating because one octal digit refers to > *three* bits
Correct, makes it not so nice looking and 8-bit-paradigm friendly. Does not make it however bad option in general and according to my personal suppositions and works on glyph development the optimal set is exactly of 8 glyphs. > Decimal is no clearer. In same alignment problematic context, yes, correct. > Binary notation seems like the solution, ... Agree with you, see my last reply to Greg for more thoughts on bitstrings and quoternary approach. > IIRC there’s some new syntax coming for binary literals > that would let us represent them as 0b1111_1111_1111_1111 Very good. Healthy attitude :) > less dense and loses clarity for many kinds of unusual bit patterns. Not very clear for me what is exactly there with patterns. > Additionally, as the number of bits increases life gets really hard: > masking out certain bits of a 64-bit number requires Self the editing of such a BITmask in hex notation makes life hard. Editing it in binary notation makes life easier. > a literal that’s at least 66 characters long, Length is a feature of binary, though it is not major issue, see my ideas on it in reply to Greg > Hexadecimal has the clear advantage that each character wholly represents 4 > bits, This advantage is brevity, but one need slightly less brevity to make it more readable. So what do you think about base 4 ? > This is a very long argument to suggest that your > argument against hexadecimal literals > (namely, that they use 16 glyphs as opposed > to the 10 glyphs used in decimal) > is an argument that is too simple to be correct. I didn't understood this sorry :))) Youre welcome to ask more if youre intersted in this. > Different collections of glyphs are clearer in different contexts. How much different collections and how much different contexts? > while the english language requires 26 glyphs plus punctuation. Does not *require*, but of course 8 glyphs would not suffice to effectively read the language, so one finds a way to extend the glyph set. Roughly speaking 20 letters is enough, but this is not exact science. And it is quite hard science. > But I don’t think you’re seriously proposing we should > swap from writing English using the larger glyph set > to writing it in decimal representation of ASCII bytes. I didn't understand this sentence :) In general I think we agree on many points, thank you for the input! Cheers, Mikhail _______________________________________________ Python-ideas mailing list Python-ideas@python.org https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-ideas Code of Conduct: http://python.org/psf/codeofconduct/
