On Tue 2008-05-13 20:46, Ketil Malde wrote: > Aaron Denney <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > I guess it depends a lot on what you grew up with. The names > (little/big endian) are incredibly apt. > > The only argument I can come up with, is that big endian seems to make > more sense for 'od': > > % echo foobar > foo > % od -x foo > 0000000 6f66 626f 7261 000a > 0000007
This, of course, is because `od -x' regards the input as 16-bit integers. We can get saner output if we regard it is 8-bit integers. $ od -t x1 foo 0000000 66 6f 6f 62 61 72 0a 0000007 > > Now I'm convinced that little endian is the way to go, as bit number n > > should have value 2^n, byte number n should have value 256^n, and so forth. It's not that simple with bits. They lack consistency just like the usual US date format and the way Germans read numbers. Jed
pgphk5bR3rQBd.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list [email protected] http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
