Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!adm!smoke!gwyn
From: gwyn@smoke.BRL.MIL (Doug Gwyn)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: binary constants (??)
Keywords: macro, constant, binary
Message-ID: <11726@smoke.BRL.MIL>
Date: 2 Dec 89 01:16:23 GMT
References: <305@frf.omron.co.jp> <20830@mimsy.umd.edu> <20989@mimsy.umd.edu> <11708@smoke.BRL.MIL> <7157@ficc.uu.net>
Reply-To: gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn)
Organization: Ballistic Research Lab (BRL), APG, MD.
Lines: 14

In article <7157@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>While you're being silly, Doug, ...

I wasn't being silly.  I was trying to make a point about "neat ideas".

>Seriously, binary would be a stunningly cheap innovation. Generalised bases
>is a neat idea, and the XXrYYYY syntax is easily the best suggested so
>far.

Fibonacci bases are more useful than this,
and why limit variable radix to (a) constants and (b) positive radix?
Those are of comparatively little utility.

I don't think the idea was so "neat".