removal of cruft from D

[Bill Baxter]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 4:45 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu
<SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote:
> Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>>
>> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>>>
>>> "Yigal Chripun" <yigal100 at gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:he6sqe$1dqu$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>>>
>>>> Based on recent discussions on the NG a few features were
>>>> deprecated/removed from D, such as typedef and C style struct initializers.
>>>>
>>>> IMO this cleanup and polish is important and all successful languages do
>>>> such cleanup for major releases (Python and Ruby come to mind). I'm glad to
>>>> see that D follows in those footsteps instead of accumulating craft like C++
>>>> does.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> As part of this trend of cleaning up D before the release of D2, what
>>>> other features/craft should be removed/deprecated?
>>>>
>>>> I suggest reverse_foreach and c style function pointers
>>>>
>>>> please add your candidates for removal.
>>>>
>>> s/reverse_foreach/foreach_reverse/ ;)
>>>
>>> 1. Floating point literals without digits on *both* sides!!! "1.", ".1"
>>> --> Useless hindrance to future language expansion!
>>>
>>> 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or
>>> even better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax. But until that
>>> finally happens, I don't want "010 == 8" preserved. And I don't think the
>>> ability to have an octal literal is important enough that lacking it for a
>>> while is a problem. And if porting-from-C really has to be an issue, then
>>> just make 0[0-9_]+ an error for a transitionary period (or forever - it'd at
>>> least be better than maintaining "010 == 8").
>>>
>>> 3. Also the comma operator, but that's already been recently discussed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> <bikeshed>
>>
>> hex literal prefix: 0x, not 0h
>> =>
>> octal literal prefix: 0c, not 0o
>>
>> </bikeshed>
>
> This I'm on board with. 0o is too much like a practical joke.

0c works for me. 0o000-0o000 woulda been fun to write though.  Looks like toes.

--bb