Re: Numeric Literals (Summary 2)

On Monday, November 18, 2002, at 08:34  PM, Martin D Kealey wrote:

> On Tue, 2002-11-19 at 08:28, Michael Lazzaro wrote:
>> - floating point becomes allowed in explicit radix (and 0b,0c,0x)
>
> How can one have floating point if "E" is a valid digit?
>
>   0x1.0e1   # 1.054931640625 or 16 ?

Oops, sorry.  I meant radix-point-but-not-exponential.  It still seems 
exponential notation in bases other than 10 is not possible, because of 
"e".

> Has any consideration been given to using letters other than a~f in the
> second position to denote a radix?

We probably couldn't get away with it, though I guess the only one that 
really changes is binary.  Of course, as you pointed out, we don't 
_need_ to have 0b, 0x at all, they're just for backwards brain 
compatibility.  I think if we're having trouble with them, people would 
probably just rather use 2#, 8#, 16#, etc. and be done with it.  Dunno, 
not getting a lot of feedback on that.

MikeL