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

[Erik Max Francis]

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.

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

-- 
Erik Max Francis && max at alcyone.com && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
  San Jose, CA, USA && 37 18 N 121 57 W && AIM/Y!M/Skype erikmaxfrancis
   Do not seek death. Death will find you.
    -- Dag Hammarskjold