[erlang-questions] Literal support for unary (1#XXXXXX...)

Andrew Pennebaker andrew.pennebaker@REDACTED
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- [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.
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

What do you think?


Andrew Pennebaker
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130602/a91c90ec/attachment.htm>

More information about the erlang-questions mailing list