On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Justin Johansson <n...@spam.com> wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote: > >> Ellery Newcomer wrote: >> > 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. But until that finally >> >> happens, I don't want "010 == 8" preserved. And I don't think the ability >> >> to >> >> have an octal literal is important enough that lacking it for a while is a >> >> problem. And if porting-from-C really has to be an issue, then just make >> >> 0[0-9_]+ an error for a transitionary period (or forever - it'd at least >> >> be >> >> better than maintaining "010 == 8"). >> >> >> >> 3. Also the comma operator, but that's already been recently discussed. >> > <bikeshed> >> > >> > hex literal prefix: 0x, not 0h >> > => >> > octal literal prefix: 0c, not 0o >> > >> > </bikeshed> >> >> This I'm on board with. 0o is too much like a practical joke. > > Okay let's go for some consistency then. > > First try. Radix character comes from 3rd character of radix name. > > hexadecimal 0x > octal 0t > binary 0n > > Or, second try, how about first non-digit-looking character in radix name? > > hexadecimal 0h > octal 0c > binary 0b > > My point being ... if there were to be a change in lexical form, a simple > rule would be nice. Of course the rule can be anything that can be coerced > to a rule. Hope this doesn't sound like a false choice :-)
No problem! charToUse = basename[ floor(log2(log2(base))) ]; --bb