Re: Radix (was Re: Perl6 Operator List)
On Sun, 27 Oct 2002, Mark J. Reed wrote: : On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote: : Larry wrote: :If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada :route of specifying the radix explicitly: : Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place of your colon below), : and I seem to recall that syntax being borrowed from an older language, but : I don't recall which one. Well, that's Ada, actually. I substituted the colon because I didn't want to overload our comment character. Though numbers could do that, just as m## already does. I presume that m## is one of those things you avoid in IDEs though. Something to be said for disallowing m## while we're disallowing m:: and m(). Something to be said against it too... Larry
Re: Radix (was Re: Perl6 Operator List)
On 2002-10-26 at 18:10:39, Michael Lazzaro wrote: Larry wrote: If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada route of specifying the radix explicitly: Ada and others . . . ksh uses the # for this (in place of your colon below), and I seem to recall that syntax being borrowed from an older language, but I don't recall which one. (Although ksh does also have the annoying leading-zero-means-octal behavior when there is no explicit radix). 0123# decimal 2:0110 # binary 8:123 # octal 16:123 # hex 256:192.168.1.0 # base 256 -- Mark REED| CNN Internet Technology 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754
Radix (was Re: Perl6 Operator List)
Larry wrote: If one were going to generalize that, one would be tempted to go the Ada route of specifying the radix explicitly: 0123# decimal 2:0110 # binary 8:123 # octal 16:123 # hex 256:192.168.1.0 # base 256 Heck that'd be fine with me... then I can easily do stuff in base 36, which I do a lot of. :-/ Still might want a letter shortcut for b/o/h, though. Just as long as 0123 doesn't magically mean octal I'm happy. Stupid, STUPID OCTAL. :-) MikeL
