On 21 Aug, 22:18, MRAB <pyt...@mrabarnett.plus.com> wrote: > Piet van Oostrum wrote: > >>>>>> Derek Martin <c...@pizzashack.org> (DM) wrote: > > >> DM> I fail to see how 0O012, or even 0o012 is more intelligible than 012. > >> DM> The latter reads like a typo, and the former is virtually > >> DM> indistinguishable from 00012, O0012, or many other combinations that > >> DM> someone might accidentally type (or intentionally type, having to do > >> DM> this in dozens of other programming languages). > > > You're right. Either hexadecimal should have been 0h or octal should > > have been 0t :=) > > I have seen the use of Q/q instead in order to make it clearer. I still > prefer Smalltalk's 16rFF and 8r377.
Two interesting options. In a project I have on I have also considered using 0q as indicating octal. I maybe saw it used once somewhere else but I have no idea where. 0t was a second choice and 0c third choice (the other letters of oct). 0o should NOT be used for obvious reasons. So you are saying that Smalltalk has <base in decimal>r<number> where r is presumably for radix? That's maybe best of all. It preserves the syntactic requirement of starting a number with a digit and seems to have greatest flexibility. Not sure how good it looks but it's certainly not bad. 0xff & 0x0e | 0b1101 16rff & 16r0e | 2r1101 Hmm. Maybe a symbol would be better than a letter. James -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list