Things that may be removed

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Don" <nospam at nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:git0p7$2tah$1 at digitalmars.com...
> 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.
>

Geez! I had no idea prepending a zero made it octal. That's terrible.