On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste: >> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe >> <destructiona...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote: >> >> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or >> >> even >> >> better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax. >> > >> > Both D and DMC accept 0b0000 as a binary literal. If 0x is hex, it seems >> > logical that octal should be 0o10. >> > >> > It looks silly, but it fits the pattern, provides the literal for those >> > who use it, and isn't valid right now. >> >> Exactly what I was thinking. 0o08. >> Except I don't think it looks so silly. >> And even if it does look silly, who cares. Octal literals *are* silly. :-) > > And it is consistent with Python 3.0, if anybody cares ;)
Yikes, python even allows 0O08. That's going to cause a little confusion. Mind if we call you Bruce? --bb