On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:25 PM, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Again, I'm wondering if we're going about this wrong way -- perhaps we
need to go to more effort to save ^ as xor, and use something
different for hypers, like h+ or h[+] or `+ or ~+ or ~~+, etc?
OK, I'm calling Warnock's on
$accumulator += +X10;
Looks like hex arithmetic.
=Austin
--- Michael Lazzaro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Okay, take 4, with 'X' meaning xor, so you can see it in context. I
warn ya, I'm gonna keep doing this until there's a Final version,
for
some value of Final. ;-) Again, I'm
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123- hex[also h:123?]
256:192.168.1.0
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123
At 4:44 PM -0500 10/28/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:44, Mark J. Reed wrote:
On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:
[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael]
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123
0x14 is questionably defined.
0X14 currently is an expression whose value is 14.
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex 123. I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now. (Is it a negative hexadecimal number, or a
On 2002-10-28 at 16:54:26, Dan Sugalski wrote:
The post that started this thread was a complaint about
leading 0 meaning octal - which is counterintuitive to everyone the
first time they come across it in C or Perl or Java or wherever.
That's not entirely true. Granted the set of the people
On Monday, October 28, 2002, at 01:57 PM, Austin Hastings wrote:
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do
something like hex:123 or hex 123. I'd hate to try to comprehend
$a = -x:123;
more than a week from now.
That x:123 part was my placeholder -- my bad, I forgot
At 2:21 PM -0800 10/28/02, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
Dan Sugalski wrote:
While we're at it, maybe we can add in 0rMCM to allow roman numerals too...
OK, see, the sad thing is that I really have no idea whether you're
joking or not. That's how wiggy this thread has gotten.
I am joking--it's
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123
What about specifying endiannes also, or would that be too low-level
to even consider? Currently I don't have any examples for where it
might even be used...
Literals are the wrong place to put that; they represent values, not
storage. Endianness should generally not be visible at the
I think that endian issues are abstracted from literals. The place it's
going to be an issue is the specifiers for pack/unpack or whatever
replaces them.
But the presence of the operator (and speaking of low-frequency
operators, what about bitwise rotation? Will that be the (( and ))
operators?)
At 12:37 AM +0200 10/29/02, Markus Laire wrote:
On 28 Oct 2002 at 16:42, Dan Sugalski wrote:
At 4:39 PM -0500 10/28/02, brian wheeler wrote:
On Mon, 2002-10-28 at 16:25, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the presence of the operator
Er, *what* operator?
: (and speaking of low-frequency operators, what about bitwise rotation?
: Will that be the (( and )) operators?)
I think those will be rejected by anyone who uses either vi or emacs.
Didn't I see an operator list a while back that featured sign-extending
shift?
If not, I apologize.
But on the other hand, we could make a ~ operator that was a
case-preserving indent :-)
=Austin
--- Larry Wall [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Mon, 28 Oct 2002, Austin Hastings wrote:
: But the
explicit radix specifications for integers:
0123- decimal
2:0110- binary [also b:0110?]
8:123 - octal [also o:123?]
16:123- hex[also h:123?]
256:192.168.1.0 - base 256
(...etc...)
Could this be used to do explicit
18 matches
Mail list logo
