Python-list Digest, Vol 18, Issue 208
reinhold-birkenfeld-nospam at wolke7.net
Tue Mar 15 19:42:05 CET 2005
Jeff Shannon wrote:
> Steven Bethard wrote:
>> Jeff Shannon wrote:
>>> now that almost the entire industry has standardized on power-of-2
>>> word sizes, octal is nearly useless but is still carried about for
>>> backwards compatibility.
>> So do you think it's worth lobbying for its removal in Python 3.0 when
>> we can break some backwards compatibility?
> I'd be in favor of that, unless someone can come up with a compelling
> current use-case for octal literals.
So what's the current state of the "universal-base-prefix" syntax?
Something like 10x10, 16xA and 8x12?
Or just use a different octal syntax like 0o10 (and introduce a similar
one for binary literals, 0b1101000111)?
More information about the Python-list