[Python-Dev] Octal literals (original) (raw)

Donovan Baarda abo at minkirri.apana.org.au
Fri Feb 3 12:12:05 CET 2006


On Wed, 2006-02-01 at 19:09 +0000, M J Fleming wrote:

On Wed, Feb 01, 2006 at 01:35:14PM -0500, Barry Warsaw wrote: > The proposal for something like 0xff, 0o664, and 0b1001001 seems like > the right direction, although 'o' for octal literal looks kind of funky. > Maybe 'c' for oCtal? (remember it's 'x' for heXadecimal). > > -Barry >

+1

+1 too.

It seems like a "least changes" way to fix the IMHO strange 0123 != 123 behaviour.

Any sort of arbitrary base syntax is overkill; decimal, hexadecimal, octal, and binary cover 99.9% of cases. The 0.1% of other cases are very special, and can use int("LITERAL",base=RADIX).

For me, binary is far more useful than octal, so I'd be happy to let octal languish as legacy support, but I definitely want "0b10110101".

-- Donovan Baarda <abo at minkirri.apana.org.au> http://minkirri.apana.org.au/~abo/



More information about the Python-Dev mailing list