Re: [ANN] Lua 5.3.0 (work2) now available

["Are Leistad" <aleistad@...>]

> On 03/23/2014 10:53 PM, mniip wrote:
> > Regarding the specifiaction of the base for numeric constants, some
> > tools I've used in the past had the following, quite clean and
> > readable, notation:
> >
> > <base>_<number>
> >
> > e.g. 2_10101010 , 16_A9 etc.
> >
> > Perhaps something worth considering for the 'number oriented' 5.3?
> >
> > Are
>
> That's not really readable. Also what happens if you specify a base
> higher than 36?

Yes, higher bases are problematic, but that applies to other methods too.
The issue of readability is subjective, of course.

> IMO we are fine with just decimals and hexadecimals. I don't really
> think binary literals are that much of a need, as it's trivial to
> translate hexadecimal to binary and back. Even C with their binary
> flags all over the place don't use any binary literals. Arbitrary
> base literals would be an overkill of useless-ness.

I disagree that C should dictate how Lua does things, and neither do I think
it's useless. Something like the above would be a catch all (in addition to
0x) and solve the basic issue once and for all - with the exception of those
very high bases, that is. Oh well, I thought it might be worth airing it :-)

Are
--


---
Denne e-posten er fri for virus og uønsket programvare fordi avast! Antivirusbeskyttelse er aktiv.
http://www.avast.com