Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!ucsd!usc!samsung!uunet!pilchuck!dataio!bright
From: bright@Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: binary constants (??)
Keywords: macro, constant, binary
Message-ID: <2214@dataio.Data-IO.COM>
Date: 20 Nov 89 19:22:46 GMT
References: <305@frf.omron.co.jp>
Reply-To: bright@dataio.Data-IO.COM (Walter Bright)
Organization: Data I/O Corporation; Redmond, WA
Lines: 16

In article <305@frf.omron.co.jp> jfriedl@frf.omron.co.jp (Jfriedl) writes:
<In some cases, I find it would be much more natural to represent
<integral constants in binary.

I agree (as I create bit patterns for icons for graphics). In fact,
Datalight C and Zortech C/C++ have always supported binary constants:

	int x = 0x16;		/* 22	*/
	int o = 026;		/* 22	*/
	int b = 0b10110;	/* 22	*/

printf() and scanf() support it also (with the %b format specifier).
If you have the source to gcc, I suspect that the modifications to the
lexical analyzer are trivial.

P.S. ANSI C rejected my suggestion for this! Even though there is 'prior art'.