majenko:
0bnnnnnnnn is C/C++
No it isn't. It is a Gnu extension.
majenko:
If you want to be "proper", use 0bnnnnnnnn.
If you want to be proper, use hexidecimal (0x followed by 0..9, a..f, or A..F) or octal (0 followed by 0..7).
odometer:
As for a leading zero for octal: I doubt that a worse piece of design in programming language syntax exists anywhere. Except maybe for those programming languages which number the months of the year from 0 to 11 (such as C and ECMAScript).Let's see: I believe that the relevant rule in many programming languages (including the Arduino programming environment) goes like this:
Numbers with only decimal digits (0 through 9) are decimal.
Except if they begin with 0, in which case they are octal.
Except if they contain a decimal point, in which case they are decimal after all.
Please correct me if I am wrong.
except if they contain a decimal point or an exponent, I think. 02e4 = 20000.0
KeithRB:
As for zero-origin indexing: following your logic, why aren't the days within each month numbered starting from zero?
Because they are already numbered.
As are the months of the year.
Really, who understands month "1" to be February but a programmer, and then only in the context of source code?
Woe to that programmer if s/he uses that month numbering in a user interface...
odometer:
KeithRB:
As for zero-origin indexing: following your logic, why aren't the days within each month numbered starting from zero?
Because they are already numbered.
As are the months of the year.
Really, who understands month "1" to be February but a programmer, and then only in the context of source code?
Woe to that programmer if s/he uses that month numbering in a user interface...
That's why 8 out of 10 cats prefer strftime()...
KeithRB:
int c3=076; <--- This is troublesome
int c4=098; <--- Ahhhh!!!!!! (actually throws a compiler error!)I don't know why it always makes me crack up, but I love this comment in the 2nd edition of K&R:
Everyone's favorite trivial change: 8 and 9 are not octal digits
So pre-ANSI, your 098 might not have thrown an error, but I have no idea what it would do.
Those old compilers (from the mid 70s of the previous century) just considered, say, 099 to be equal to 8*9+9 == 81.
kind regards,
Jos
I would guess, that if you start looking at date calculations, you would find that the 0 based method is more natural, and in fact there are a lot of (day-1) calculations in the code.
0 based lets you use modulo in calculations easily.
KeithRB:
I would guess, that if you start looking at date calculations, you would find that the 0 based method is more natural, and in fact there are a lot of (day-1) calculations in the code.0 based lets you use modulo in calculations easily.
If you want to go that route, I recommend you think of the year as running from the beginning of March to the end of February. This makes dealing with leap years a lot simpler (if, in some ways, less intuitive).
If we reckon the human date "March 1" (of any year) as machine date 0, then machine date 31 will always mean April 1; machine date 61 will always mean May 1; Halloween and Christmas Day will come every year without fail on machine dates 244 and 299, respectively; and your girlfriend will wallop you if you don't special-case machine date 350.