By puredanger
via code.joejag.com
Published: Nov 23 2009 / 21:22
![]() | |
| BIRT 3.7 | |
| Written by: Michael Williams | |
| Featured Refcardz: Top Refcardz: | |
| 150+ Refcardz Available · Get them all | |
By puredanger
via code.joejag.com
Published: Nov 23 2009 / 21:22
Comments
yakkoh replied ago:
Underscores in numeric literals: already available in Ruby
Binary literals: as is from Ruby
But the octal notation is still in there.
philho replied ago:
They were in Ada way before Ruby was dreamed!
Comparing languages is a fail game.
http://archive.adaic.com/standards/83lrm/html/lrm-02-04.html
yakkoh replied ago:
Good link.
The base notation (2.4.2. Based Literals )is what Java should have implemented. At last , at long last, the programmer could write:
int tval1 = 000000451;
int tval2 = 003311112;
int tval3 = 900000001; // all aligned!
// and
int oct_special = 8#011#;
RawThinkTank replied ago:
Absolute nonsense codeing shorthands.
Hmm, so which is the latest dynamic language that dont have closures ?
Voters For This Link (79)
Voters Against This Link (0)