binary constants (??)

[Doug Gwyn]

In article <7157 at ficc.uu.net> peter at ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>While you're being silly, Doug, ...

I wasn't being silly.  I was trying to make a point about "neat ideas".

>Seriously, binary would be a stunningly cheap innovation. Generalised bases
>is a neat idea, and the XXrYYYY syntax is easily the best suggested so
>far.

Fibonacci bases are more useful than this,
and why limit variable radix to (a) constants and (b) positive radix?
Those are of comparatively little utility.

I don't think the idea was so "neat".