Numeric literals in other than base 10 - was Annoying octal notation

[Steven D'Aprano]

On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 01:34:10 +0000, Steven D'Aprano wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:58:12 -0700, Mensanator wrote:
> 
>>> But I certainly wouldn't call it "binary", for fear of confusion with
>>> radix-2 binary.
>> 
>> That's my point. Since the common usage of "binary" is for Standard
>> Positional Number System of Radix 2, it follows that "unary" is the
>> common usage for Standard Positional Number System of Radix 1.
> 
> Er, no, that doesn't follow. There is no such thing as a radix-1
> positional number system -- it just doesn't work.

Sorry, this is clumsy writing... of course radix-1 positional number 
system is defined, it's just pointless -- it is only capable of 
representing 0 = 00 = 000 = 0000 ...


-- 
Steven