Bill Baxter Wrote: > 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
Sweet. I'm curious though, have you ever programmed in BrainF? Ha :-)