[erlang-questions] Literal support for unary (1#XXXXXX...)
Andrew Pennebaker
<>
Sun Jun 2 21:22:51 CEST 2013
Could we extend the # integer syntax to support base 1? It would be cool if
1#11111111 worked, instead of doing this:
$ erl
Erlang R15B03 (erts-5.9.3.1) [source] [64-bit] [smp:2:2] [async-threads:0]
[hipe] [kernel-poll:false] [dtrace]
Eshell V5.9.3.1 (abort with ^G)
1> 2#1000.
8
2> 1#11111111.
* 1: illegal base '1'
2> #11111111.
* 1: syntax error before: 11111111
To be sure, base 1 isn't used that often in practice. But neither is base
3, 13, or 37, so it seems a little strange why the range of base literals
is [2, 36]. If we apply the principle of "least surprise", I think it would
be a good idea to also accept base 1.
At worst, this would add one more complexity step; if we can't use the
current base conversion algorithm for base 1, then adding one more match
case and summing the number of 1's to follow would be trivial enough to
implement.
What do you think?
--
Cheers,
Andrew Pennebaker
www.yellosoft.us
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130602/a91c90ec/attachment.html>
More information about the erlang-questions
mailing list