On 3/15/07, <b class="gmail_sendername">Guido van Rossum</b> <<a href="mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org">email@example.com</a>> wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
I'm neutral about the choice between 0o, 0c or 0t.</blockquote><div><br>Interested Lurker Opinion: Can it be a "small" character? 0x1 leaps out for me because of the fact that numbers are all "tall" and the x is short-- so having that difference in height makes it very clear this is not a normal base 10 number when I'm scanning text. 0o755 does the same, as does 0c755. Heck, even 0b10100 looks fine even though the 'b' has a stalk, since its bottom-heavy with the stalk off to the side.
<br><br>However, a 't' is a tall and relatively streamlined character... 0t755 looks all jumbled together and doesn't provide as clear a visual indicator that something abnormal is going on here. I periodically have to use octal numbers, and so far am only using them with the int() function because I don't find 0755 as readily expressive of "Hi! I'm Octal!" as I'd like. 0t755 wouldn't be much of an improvement; but anything else short would be, from 0o755 to 0c755 to ... 0a755 .. or whatever. :)
<br><br>--Stephen, who goes back to lurking interestedly. :) <br></div></div>