Larry (>>), Dan (>):
>> The lack of base 4 numbers in Real Life seems to me to justify the
>> convention. Do you have a use case?
>
> Real Life on Earth is base-4 coded :-p
Heh. :)
> hey, do we have tr/// equivalent already?
In S05? Yes, since the get-go.
In Rakudo? You do know that it's freel
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On Nov 17 2010, at 05:16 , Larry Wall wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:11:01PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
> : Carl Mäsak wrote:
> : >Darren (>):
> : >>While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
> : >>nice for a sense
Larry Wall wrote:
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:11:01PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: Carl Mäsak wrote:
: >Darren (>):
: >>While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
: >>nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific to
: >>base-4 that complem
> : >Darren (>):
> : >>While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
> : >>nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific
> to
> : >>base-4 that complements the 4 that we have now for bases 2,8,16,10.
> : >
> : >You're joking, right?
> :
> : No
On 11/16/2010 08:46 PM, Darren Duncan wrote:
> So, any thoughts on this?
A wonderful application for a module.
And don't we already have
:4<1230>
for base 4 literals? With a simple scheme that can be used up to base 36?
Cheers,
Moritz
How thinks that Perl 6 should really becom
On Tue, Nov 16, 2010 at 12:11:01PM -0800, Darren Duncan wrote:
: Carl Mäsak wrote:
: >Darren (>):
: >>While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
: >>nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific to
: >>base-4 that complements the 4 that we h
Carl Mäsak wrote:
Darren (>):
While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific to
base-4 that complements the 4 that we have now for bases 2,8,16,10.
You're joking, right?
No, its a serious idea
Darren (>):
> While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be
> nice for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific to
> base-4 that complements the 4 that we have now for bases 2,8,16,10.
You're joking, right?
// Carl
A simple proposal ...
While I haven't seen any prior art on this, I'm thinking that it would be nice
for a sense of completeness or parity to have an 0a syntax specific to base-4
that complements the 4 that we have now for bases 2,8,16,10.
With that addition, the line-up would look like this:
