Giving up

[Siemargl]

On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 11:08:05 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 08:29:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 8/5/2022 9:43 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
>>> Both "123." and "123.E123" is valid C. For some reason, D 
>>> only copied the former.
>>
>> It's to support UFCS (Universal Function Call Syntax).
>
> UFCS could still be supported with the exception of functions 
> named like exponents. (I am not advocating for it.)
>
>> aaaand, the truth comes out. It is not representable, it is 
>> truncated to 0. Technically, ImportC should accept it. But if 
>> it does, doesn't it mislead users into thinking it is non-zero?
>>
>> We've got the right choice here, but it's definitely a 
>> judgement call.
>
> No objections to this.

May be we need some warnings about ambiguity, but incompability 
with C in base things, as literals is not an option.

Same code compiled different with ImportC but not D, ough.