removal of cruft from D

Bill Baxter wbaxter at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 17:18:21 PST 2009


On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:09 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 14:10 me escribiste:
>> On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 2:12 PM, Adam D. Ruppe
>> <destructionator at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 04:49:52PM -0500, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Both D and DMC accept 0b0000 as a binary literal. If 0x is hex, it seems
>> > logical that octal should be 0o10.
>> >
>> > It looks silly, but it fits the pattern, provides the literal for those
>> > who use it, and isn't valid right now.
>>
>> Exactly what I was thinking. 0o08.
>> Except I don't think it looks so silly.
>> And even if it does look silly, who cares.  Octal literals *are* silly.  :-)
>
> And it is consistent with Python 3.0, if anybody cares ;)

Yikes, python even allows 0O08.
That's going to cause a little confusion.  Mind if we call you Bruce?

--bb



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list