On Tuesday, November 19, 2002, at 10:26 PM, Dave Storrs wrote:
I would assume that 0B0110, 0C0123, and 0X00FF are all equivalent to
the forms with lower-case base markers, right?
Huh, dunno. Let's ask for a ruling on that.
-0xff # ok
-0x00ff # ok
Are these two identical?
Yep.
Is 0x-ff an error? (I would say yes.)
Yes!
0x_ff # ok
Wait a minute...the rule is that underscore can only appear between
digits. Here, the 'x' is not a digit, it is a base marker.
Therefore, shouldn't this be an error?
Oops, yes. Sorry. Though we could probably allow it without
ambiguity, if people wanted it. Same with 1.234_e_5.
The more I think on it, the more it seems like the negative sign
should really go to the right of the colon (20:-1GJ)...otherwise, it
really does look like you're using a negative radix (is that even
possible?). I realize this is out of step with the traditional -0xff,
but it still seems like The Right Thing to me...what do other people
think?
Larry said -20:1GJ, because (paraphrasing) the '-' is a unary operator
meaning "negate", not a part of the literal number itself. So you're
specifying the number 20:1GJ, then negating it.
62:zZ # base 62 (?)
62:z.Z # base 62 (identical?)
62:z_Z # base 62 (identical?)
62:Zz # base 62 (not identical?)
Yes, that part shouldn't be in there anymore, we indeed nixed it.
Can't use letters with radix > 36, have to use the coloned form.
(radix 33-RADIX_MAX)
256:0.253.254.255 # base 256
256:0_253_254_255 # base 256
Are these two intended to be identical or not? I expect not...the
first should be a 4 digit number and the second a 10 digit number.
Yes, they're very different.
I'll post a follow up with all the corrections.
MikeL
