[Python-Dev] Octal literals (original) (raw)
Donovan Baarda abo at minkirri.apana.org.au
Fri Feb 3 12:12:05 CET 2006
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Octal literals
- Next message: [Python-Dev] ctypes patch (was: (libffi) Re: Copyright issue)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
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/
- Previous message: [Python-Dev] Octal literals
- Next message: [Python-Dev] ctypes patch (was: (libffi) Re: Copyright issue)
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]