On Monday 24 August 2009 01:04:37 bartc wrote: > That's a neat idea. But an even simpler scheme might be: > > .octal.100 > .decimal.100 > .hex.100 > .binary.100 > .trinary.100 > > until it gets to this anyway: > > .thiryseximal.100
Yeah right. So now I first have to type a string, which probably has a strict spelling, before a number. It is only marginally less stupid than this: 1.0 - Unary 11.0101 - Binary 111. 012012 - Trinary 11111111.01234567 - Octal 1111111111.0123456789 - Decimal 1111111111111111.0123456789abcdef - Hex Any parser that can count will immediately know what to do. I also tried to include an example of a literal with a base of a Googol but I ran out of both ink and symbols. :-) - Hendrik -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
