Numeric literals in other than base 10 - was Annoying octal notation

[James Harris]

On 24 Aug, 09:30, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
> James Harris wrote:
> > On 24 Aug, 09:05, Erik Max Francis <m... at alcyone.com> wrote:
> >>>> Here's another suggested number literal format. First, keep the
> >>>> familar 0x and 0b of C and others and to add 0t for octal. (T is the
> >>>> third letter of octal as X is the third letter of hex.) The numbers
> >>>> above would be
> >>>>   0b1011, 0t7621, 0xc26b
> >>>> Second, allow an arbitrary number base by putting base and number in
> >>>> quotes after a zero as in
> >>>>   0"2:1011", 0"8:7621", 0"16:c26b"
> >>> Why not just put the base first, followed by the value in quotes:
> >>>     2"1011", 8"7621", 16"c26b"
> >> It's always a bit impressive how syntax suggestions get more and more
> >> involved and, if you'll forgive me for saying, ridiculous as the
> >> conversation continues.  This is starting to get truly nutty.
>
> > Why do you say that here? MRAB's suggestion is one of the clearest
> > there has been. And it incorporates the other requirements: starts
> > with a digit, allows an appropriate alphabet, has no issues with
> > spacing digit groups, shows clearly where the number ends and could
> > take an exponent suffix.
>
> In your opinion.  Obviously not in others.  Which is pretty obviously
> what I meant, so the rhetorical question is a bit weird here.

Don't get defensive.... Yes, in my opinion, if you like, but you can't
say "obviously not in others" as no one else but you has commented on
MRAB's suggestion.

Also, when you say "This is starting to get truly nutty" would you
accept that that's in your opinion?

> There's a reason that languages designed by committee end up horrific
> nightmares.

True but I would suggest that mistakes are also made by designers who
do not seek the opinions of others. There's a balance to be struck
between a committee and an ivory tower.

James