On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Justin Johansson <n...@spam.com> wrote: > 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
Well here ya go then: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA Courtesy of Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, and myself. --bb
