"Scott David Daniels" <scott.dani...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:kn2dnszr5b0bwazxnz2dnuvz_s-dn...@pdx.net...
James Harris wrote:...
Another option:
0.(2:1011), 0.(8:7621), 0.(16:c26b)
where the three characters "0.(" begin the sequence.
Comments? Improvements?
I did a little interpreter where non-base 10 numbers
(up to base 36) were:
.7.100 == 64 (octal)
.9.100 == 100 (decimal)
.F.100 == 256 (hexadecimal)
.1.100 == 4 (binary)
.3.100 == 9 (trinary)
.Z.100 == 46656 (base 36)
Advantages:
Tokenizer can recognize chunks easily.
Not visually too confusing,
No issue of what base the base indicator is expressed in.
It can be assumed however that .9. isn't in binary?
That's a neat idea. But an even simpler scheme might be:
.octal.100
.decimal.100
.hex.100
.binary.100
.trinary.100
until it gets to this anyway:
.thiryseximal.100
--
Bartc
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
