add binary formatting (proof-of-concept) #54
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Hello there!
I wanted to suggest adding binary/octal (and potentially exponential for
f32/f64) formatting support for numbers. As a proof-of-concept, I have adjusted the structures needed for hex-formatting to showcase that the same workflow would work with the other mentioned types. I would even expect that we could create a unified interface & macros for the definitions for the impl blocks.Some thoughts:
0xfvs.0b1) and the bitshift operation, as well as some constant (e.g. the prefix would be0b).x, then your mask is2.pow(x) - 1– maybe that could be used in the macro as well.HexOptionsstruct could be renamed and reused for all those number format options, I believe.What's your opinion on this? Are there any plans to include such functionality anyways?