At 4:44 PM -0500 10/28/02, Mark J. Reed wrote:
That's not entirely true. Granted the set of the people for whom a leading 0 instinctively means octal is not that big (and getting smaller due to retirement and death from old age :) but it was meaningful at one time.On 2002-10-28 at 16:39:10, brian wheeler wrote:[The below is actually from Larry, not Michael] > explicit radix specifications for integers: > 0123 - decimal > 2:0110 - binary [also b:0110?] > 8:123 - octal [also o:123?] > 16:123 - hex [also h:123?] > 256:192.168.1.0 - base 256 > (...etc...)The post that started this thread was a complaint about leading 0 meaning octal - which is counterintuitive to everyone the first time they come across it in C or Perl or Java or wherever.
--
Dan
--------------------------------------"it's like this"-------------------
Dan Sugalski even samurai
[EMAIL PROTECTED] have teddy bears and even
teddy bears get drunk