More octal questions

[Daniel Murphy]

"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisProg at gmx.com> wrote in message 
news:mailman.508.1329531876.20196.digitalmars-d-learn at puremagic.com...
>
> They have nothing to do with octal in that they were not intentionally 
> octal.
> I was merely using the leading 0 without thinking about it, because having
> leading 0s generally makes more sense when dealing with the date/time 
> stuff.
> The fact that they were octal is incidental. They result in the same 
> number
> either way, save for 08 and 09 not working.
>

While we can't ever allow leading zeroes in the general case, to catch 
errors porting ocal literals from c family languages, 08 and 09 could 
actually be supported in the future.