On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> wrote: > Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste: >> 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? > > I didn't get the... joke?
It's a quote from a Monty Python sketch. I think I heard you're supposed to use as many Monty Python quotes as possible when discussing Python. --bb