Re: lcc first experience

jacob navia wrote:
> [... concerning 0bXXXX... numeric literals ...]
> I do not know why this is not used elsewhere.

     How about 0qXXXX...?

<off-topic>

     In all my days, I've only encountered one language that
sup****ted literals in all the bases 2,4,8,16: XPL, by McKeeman,
Horning, and Wortman.

	binary:  "(1)0101010101" (to any length desired)
	quartal: "(2)11111"      ( "  "     "      "   )
	octal:   "(3)0525"       ( "  "     "      "   )
	hex:     "(4)155"        ( "  "     "      "   )

The (4) could be omitted at the start of a hex bit-string.

     The (2) constants were used a lot in their application,
which was an exemplar of compiler technology circa 1970.
A lot of it rested on tables of functions that had three
values ("stack, reduce, special case"), and these were
easily encoded (with some waste) as strings of base-four
numbers.

</off-topic>

-- 
Eric Sosman
esosman@[EMAIL PROTECTED]