0x14 is questionably defined. 0X14 currently is an expression whose value is 14.
If we're going to kill the alternate radix literals, better to do something like hex:123 or hex "123". I'd hate to try to comprehend $a = -x:123; more than a week from now. (Is it a negative hexadecimal number, or a boolean representing file permissions, or something far more sinister?) =Austin --- "Mark J. Reed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > 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. > So yes, as indicated by the first line above, if > this proposal were to be adopted (and again, it's just Larry thinking > out > loud), 0123 would be 123 decimal, not 123 octal = 83 decimal. > > However I don't see any reason not to allow 0x as a synonym for > 16: (or 16# or whatever the radix syntax would be). > > -- > Mark REED | CNN Internet Technology > 1 CNN Center Rm SW0831G | [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Atlanta, GA 30348 USA | +1 404 827 4754 __________________________________________________ Yahoo! - We Remember 9-11: A tribute to the more than 3,000 lives lost http://dir.remember.yahoo.com/tribute
