sprintf returns a string so if you try to get ascii value of returned string, you get value of character "6" and "4" rather than that of 6 and 4.

Not completely sure what do you want to do but if you want to get a binary representation of 100(dec) in a string you can use "%b"

Output:

• 100 decimal
• 64 hexadecimal
• 01100100 binary

unpack 'B*', pack 'c', 100;
01100100
[download]

Also:

>perl -wMstrict -le
"print qq{'\x64'}, pack 'C', 100;
"
'd'd
[download]

I think you have a perceptual issue. 100(dec) 64(hex) and 0110 0100(bin) are all character representations of the same thing . The value stored in the variable you are displaying. Even when you 'convert' it to binary what you will get is the ascii characters "01100100". 100(dec) is stored in memory as the actual bits 01100100 but if you look at that value it is actually 'd' in ASCII.

The value is not the representation.

Hope this helps some

Your terminology is very confusing, but it sounds to me like you want the numerical value 64₁₆ aka 100₁₀ from the string "64". For that, you can use hex.

$ perl -E'say 0x64 == hex("64") ?"yes":"no"'
yes
[download]

In case I misunderstood, here are some other related conversions:

pack 'C' would work in lieu of chr.

Update: I just noticed your followup. It seems that you want the packed byte 64₁₆ (aka "d" in ASCII), but you didn't specify from what.

$ perl -E'say "\x64" eq chr(hex("64")) ?"yes":"no"'
yes

$ perl -E'say "\x64" eq chr(0x64) ?"yes":"no"'
yes
[download]

That could also be written

$ perl -E'say "\x64" eq pack("C", hex("64")) ?"yes":"no"'
yes

$ perl -E'say "\x64" eq pack("C", 0x64) ?"yes":"no"'
yes
[download]

Then use chr. Or some variety of pack.
Perl 6 - second systems done right

On one hand, I can understand your frustration/aggravation of seeing someone post the same question on multiple sites.

On the other hand, I don't seem to recall that PM had a requirement (or expected etiquette) that an individual is not allowed to post a question on this site as well as other sites (with or without explicit declaration of such "crossposting"). Also, I was unable to locate such documentation on this site that states this policy.

If you don't mind, could you please help point me to the documentation that states this policy so that I, an ignorant fool, can become enlightened?

It's not an agreement, it's common sense (plus politeness). And the point is not to forbid crossposting, but to explicitly point out the cross-post:

If you crosspost on sites A and B, and you already get a good answer on site A, persons reading only site B will not be aware that you already received an answer on A, and will try to unnecessarily answer your question again. You, kind of, waste the effort of people trying to help you.

-- 
Ronald Fischer <ynnor@mm.st>