Bill Baxter Wrote: > 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
What? I don't know that! http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm