On Wed, 1 Feb 2006, 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).
Shouldn't it be 0t644 then, and 0n1001001 for binary ? That would sidestep the issue of 'b' and 'c' being valid hexadecimal digits as well.
Regarding negative numbers, I think they're a red herring. If there is any need for a new literal format, it would be to express ~0x0f, not -0x10. 1xf0 has been proposed before, but I think YAGNI.