Things that may be removed

Don nospam at
Wed Dec 24 01:52:30 PST 2008

bearophile wrote:
> Nick Sabalausky:
>> Disagree. Octal can often useful on low-level embedded stuff.
> I think the point was to improve the syntax of octal numbers, not to remove them. So 0125 becomes a syntax error (as usual to keep compatibility with C, otherwise it's better to make it just mean 125), and invent a less error-prone syntax for octal numbers. For example 0oxxxx.

Exactly. I just think it's ridiculous that octal has a privileged syntax:
int a = 06;
int b = 09;
either both lines should compile, or neither.
I like the 0c635 syntax.

>>> * the comma operator (allow in selected places, eg for(; ;++a, ++b)).
>> What is the problem with these?
> Generally the comma operator is useful only in particular situations, and in other situations it may lead to errors.
> This is an acceptable use (but this too may lead to some errors):
> for( i = 0, j = MAX; i <= j; ++i, --j )
> This shows some of the stupid uses of the comma operator:
> A way to use the comma operator is to allow multiple simultaneous assignments:
> x, y = y, x
> a, b, c = c, b, a
> Etc.
> (The compiler can minimize the operations and intermediate memory required to do that).

That would be useful, but it's not the comma operator.
> Bye,
> bearophile

More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list