Annoying octal notation

[James Harris]

On 3 Sep, 14:26, Albert van der Horst <alb... at spenarnc.xs4all.nl>
wrote:
> In article <6031ba08-08c8-416b-91db-ce8ff57ae... at w6g2000yqw.googlegroups.com>,
> James Harris  <james.harri... at googlemail.com> wrote:
> <SNIP>
>
>
>
> >So you are saying that Smalltalk has <base in decimal>r<number> where
> >r is presumably for radix? That's maybe best of all. It preserves the
> >syntactic requirement of starting a number with a digit and seems to
> >have greatest flexibility. Not sure how good it looks but it's
> >certainly not bad.
>
> >  0xff & 0x0e | 0b1101
> >  16rff & 16r0e | 2r1101
>
> >Hmm. Maybe a symbol would be better than a letter.
>
> Like 0#ff  16#ff ?

Yes, that looks better.

> That is ALGOL68. It is incredible how many of it has become
> vindicated over time. (Yes, nineteen hundred sixty eight was
> the year that language was conceived.)

Yes, and its predecessor Algol 60 was a masterful advance in
programming languages. It set up standards we still use today.

James