Re: Numeric literals, take 3

James Mastros wrote:

> On 11/27/2002 7:54 PM, Angel Faus wrote:
>
>> For example, the integer 30 can be written in base 16
>> in two equivalent ways:
>>
>>    my $x = 16#1D;
>>    my $x = 16#1:14;
>>
>> These two representations are incompatible, so writing
>> something like C<16#D:13> will generate a compile-time
>> error.
>
> Ambiguity:
> Is C<my $x = 16#14;> equivlent to the digit "14", base-sixteen, or is 
> it equivlent to 0x14?  (This has been noted before, but I don't think 
> anybody has decided.  My vote is 0x14, you should say my $x=16#0:14 if 
> you want the other meaning.)

Doesn't
my $x=16#0:14
give you 2 digits rather than 1 ?

if not, there'll be an inconsistency between 16#1:14 and 16#0:14
Maybe it needs to be 16#:14 - UGH.

Presumably the compiler can determine that 16#141312 means 
16#1:4:1:3:1:2 because of the length, so its only 2 character numbers 
with both characters numeric that are ambiguous. That's a small set of 
literals, but still needs resolving.

R.