Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!samsung!usc!apple!genbank!agate!shelby!csli!poser
From: poser@csli.Stanford.EDU (Bill Poser)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: binary constants (??)
Keywords: macro, constant, binary
Message-ID: <11182@csli.Stanford.EDU>
Date: 29 Nov 89 07:48:25 GMT
References: <305@frf.omron.co.jp> <20830@mimsy.umd.edu> <20989@mimsy.umd.edu>
Sender: news@csli.Stanford.EDU
Reply-To: poser@csli.stanford.edu (Bill Poser)
Organization: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford U.
Lines: 14

In article <20989@mimsy.umd.edu> chris@mimsy.umd.edu (Chris Torek) writes:
>Those of you who are trying to design `D'
>(or `P') might consider dumping 0-octal and 0x-hex in favour of
>something sane, like <base>r<text>, 2r11001 = 8r31 = 25 = 16r19.

Isn't this the approach taken in Algol-68? I'm curious if experience
with Algol sheds any light on whether it is a good idea. It seems
attractive to me.

I've recently been reading up on Algol-68 and am constantly struck by
how many features of more recent languages are to be found there.
I'm not sure that its a good idea to have so many different things
in one language, but the designers sure thought of a lot of interesting
things.