Best search algorithm to find condition within a range

Dave Angel davea at davea.name
Tue Apr 7 17:23:54 CEST 2015


On 04/07/2015 11:05 AM, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2015-04-07, Chris Angelico <rosuav at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 8, 2015 at 12:36 AM,  <jonas.thornvall at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Integers are internally assumed to be base 10 otherwise you could not
>>> calculate without giving the base.
>>>
>>> All operations on integers addition, subtraction, multiplication and
>>> division assume base 10.
>>
>> You misunderstand how computers and programming languages work. What
>> you're seeing there is that *integer literals* are usually in base
>> 10; and actually, I can point to plenty of assembly languages where
>> the default isn't base 10 (it's usually base 16 (hexadecimal) on IBM
>> PCs, and probably base 8 (octal) on big iron).
>
> I'd be curious to see some of those assemblers. I've used dozens of
> assemblers over the years for everything from microprocessors with a
> few hundred bytes of memory to mini-computers and mainframes.  I've
> never seen one that didn't default to base 10 for integer literals.
>
> I'm not saying they don't exist, just that it would be interesting to
> see an example of one.
>

I can't "show" it to you, but the assembler used to write microcode on 
the Wang labs 200VP and 2200MVP used hex for all its literals.  I wrote 
the assembler (and matching debugger-assembler), and if we had needed 
other bases I would have taken an extra day to add them in.

That assembler was not available to our customers, as the machine 
shipped with the microcode in readonly form.  Not quite as readonly as 
the Intel processors of today, of course.


Additionally, the MSDOS DEBUG program used hex to enter in its literals, 
if i recall correctly.  Certainly when it disassembled code, it was in hex.


-- 
DaveA



More information about the Python-list mailing list