Numeric literals in other than base 10 - was Annoying octal notation
Scott David Daniels
Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org
Mon Aug 24 18:18:20 CEST 2009
Piet van Oostrum wrote:
>>>>>> Scott David Daniels <Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org> (SDD) wrote:
>
>> SDD> James Harris wrote:...
>>>> Another option:
>>>>
>>>> 0.(2:1011), 0.(8:7621), 0.(16:c26b)
>>>>
>>>> where the three characters "0.(" begin the sequence.
>>>>
>>>> Comments? Improvements?
>
>> SDD> I did a little interpreter where non-base 10 numbers
>> SDD> (up to base 36) were:
>
>> SDD> .7.100 == 64 (octal)
>> SDD> .9.100 == 100 (decimal)
>> SDD> .F.100 == 256 (hexadecimal)
>> SDD> .1.100 == 4 (binary)
>> SDD> .3.100 == 9 (trinary)
>> SDD> .Z.100 == 46656 (base 36)
>
> I wonder how you wrote that interpreter, given that some answers are wrong.
Obviously I started with a different set of examples and edited after
starting to make a table that could be interpretted in each base. After
doing that, I forgot to double check, and lo and behold .F.1000 = 46656,
while .F.100 = 1296. Since it has been decades since I've had access
to that interpreter, this is all from memory.
--Scott David Daniels
Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org
More information about the Python-list
mailing list