Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!ames!amdahl!ptsfa!well!physh
From: physh@well.UUCP (JonPhysh Foreman)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c,net.sources
Subject: Re: binary radix (+ some source)
Message-ID: <2924@well.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 22-Apr-87 08:05:25 EST
Article-I.D.: well.2924
Posted: Wed Apr 22 08:05:25 1987
Date-Received: Fri, 24-Apr-87 01:14:08 EST
References: <213@pyuxe.UUCP> <710@brl-sem.ARPA> <422@ivax.doc.ic.ac.uk> <2970@pegasus.UUCP> <581@csun.UUCP>
Reply-To: physh@well.UUCP (JonPhysh Foreman)
Organization: Whole Earth 'Lectronic Link, Sausalito, CA
Lines: 39
Keywords: octal, hex, binary, roman
Summary: Why just binary?
Xref: mnetor comp.lang.c:1848 net.sources:4352


	I had a hack in a C compiler for 4.1 BSD (which went away
as well as the source <sorry> for 4.3 BSD) which would accept

0R<Roman Numerals>

So that it would be valid to say:

	pagenumber = 0rvii; 	/* pagenumber = 7 */

etc.  At the same time I also added a special routine which would
take 0f<base>.<number>.  The "f" is "fix radix", base is the number
base to use, and number is the number in "base" base.  So:

0f12.10 = 12 (decimal)
0f0x10.10 = 0f16.10 = 16(decimal)	/*note imbedded reference 0x..*/
0f2.10 = 2 (decimal)

and 

"0f18." would consist of the set of { 0123456789abcdefgh } digits.

Note, this method only worked up to base 36.  I forget what I did
with "0f0." and "0f1.".

This could get really complicated quickly, but think how good it
would do for the C obfustication awards!

I don't think I ever implemented printf & scanf functions to deal
with this kind of tripe.

					Jon

-------------------------------
Disclaimer: Today, I'm probably insane (or at least I'll plead it that way),
	    who knows about tomorrow.
Addresses .. ucbvax!dual!unicom!physh
	  .. hplabs!well!physh
	  .. killer!ssbn!physh