On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 20:13:48 +0100, Reinhold Birkenfeld <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>Bengt Richter wrote:
>> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:18:25 -0500, Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Mythical Future Python I would like to be able to use any base in
in
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
...
> In Mythical Future Python I would like to be able to use any base in
> integer literals, which would be better. Example random syntax:
> flags= 2x00011010101001
> umask= 8x664
> answer= 10x42
> addr= 16x0E84 # 16x == 0x
> gunk= 36x8H6Z9A0X
I'd prefer using the
Bengt Richter wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:18:25 -0500, Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>>> In Mythical Future Python I would like to be able to use any base in
>>> integer literals, which would be better. Example random syntax:
>>>
>>> flags= 2x00011010101
Simon Brunning wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:50:56 -0500, Leif K-Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Tim Roberts wrote:
>> > Stephen Thorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> >
>> >>I would actually like to see pychecker pick up conceptual errors like this:
>> >>
>> >>import datetime
>> >>datetime.da
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 16:50:56 -0500, Leif K-Brooks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tim Roberts wrote:
> > Stephen Thorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> >>I would actually like to see pychecker pick up conceptual errors like this:
> >>
> >>import datetime
> >>datetime.datetime(2005, 04,04)
> >
> >
> >
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 17:43:01 -0600, Jeff Epler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>--LQksG6bCIzRHxTLp
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Disposition: inline
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
>On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:04:21PM +, Bengt Richter wrote:
>> One way to do i
On Thu, Jan 13, 2005 at 11:04:21PM +, Bengt Richter wrote:
> One way to do it consistently is to have a sign digit as the first
> digit after the x, which is either 0 or base-1 -- e.g., +3 and -3 would be
>
> 2x011 2x101
> 8x03 8x75
> 16x03 16xfd
> 10x03 10x97
... so that 0x8
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:18:25 -0500, Peter Hansen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> In Mythical Future Python I would like to be able to use any base in
>> integer literals, which would be better. Example random syntax:
>>
>> flags= 2x00011010101001
>> umask= 8x664
>> answer=
Tim Roberts wrote:
Stephen Thorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I would actually like to see pychecker pick up conceptual errors like this:
import datetime
datetime.datetime(2005, 04,04)
Why is that a conceptual error? Syntactically, this could be a valid call
to a function. Even if you have parsed
On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 09:56:15 -0500,
Steve Holden <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I remember using a langauge (Icon?) in which arbitrary bases up to 36
> could be used with numeric literals. IIRC, the literals had to begin
> with the base in decimnal, folowed by a "b" followed by the digits of
> the v
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
John Machin wrote:
I regard continued usage of octal as a pox and a pestilence.
Quite agree. I was disappointed that it ever made it into Python.
Octal's only use is:
a) umasks
b) confusing the hell out of normal non-programmers for whom a
leading zero is in no way magic
Peter Hansen wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > In Mythical Future Python I would like to be able to use any base
in
> > integer literals, which would be better. Example random syntax:
> >
> > flags= 2x00011010101001
> > umask= 8x664
> > answer= 10x42
> > addr= 16x0E84 # 16x == 0x
> > gunk=
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In Mythical Future Python I would like to be able to use any base in
integer literals, which would be better. Example random syntax:
flags= 2x00011010101001
umask= 8x664
answer= 10x42
addr= 16x0E84 # 16x == 0x
gunk= 36x8H6Z9A0X
I think I kinda like this idea. Allowing
Stephen Thorne <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>On 12 Jan 2005 16:21:29 -0800, PJDM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> Maybe P3K will have an integer literal like "n_b" for "the integer n in
>> base b".
>
>I would actually like to see pychecker pick up conceptual errors like this:
>
>import datetime
>dateti
John Machin wrote:
> I regard continued usage of octal as a pox and a pestilence.
Quite agree. I was disappointed that it ever made it into Python.
Octal's only use is:
a) umasks
b) confusing the hell out of normal non-programmers for whom a
leading zero is in no way magic
(a) does not outweig
On 12 Jan 2005 16:21:29 -0800, PJDM <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Maybe P3K will have an integer literal like "n_b" for "the integer n in
> base b".
I would actually like to see pychecker pick up conceptual errors like this:
import datetime
datetime.datetime(2005, 04,04)
Regards,
Stephen Thorne
-
John Machin wrote:
>
> 1. Octal notation is of use to systems programmers on computers where
> the number of bits in a word is a multiple of 3. Are there any still
in
> production use? AFAIK word sizes were 12, 24, 36, 48, and 60 bits --
> all multiples of 4, so hexadecimal could be used.
The PDP-
Some poster wrote (in connexion with another topic):
> ... unicode("\347", "iso-8859-1") ...
Well, I haven't had a good rant for quite a while, so here goes:
I'm a bit of a retro specimen, being able (inter alia) to recall octal
opcodes from the ICT 1900 series (070=call, 072=exit, 074=branch, .
18 matches
Mail list logo
