removal of cruft from D

[Bill Baxter]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Justin Johansson <no at spam.com> wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
>
>> Ellery Newcomer wrote:
>> > 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. 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.
>
> Okay let's go for some consistency then.
>
> First try. Radix character comes from 3rd character of radix name.
>
> hexadecimal   0x
> octal             0t
> binary           0n
>
> Or, second try, how about first non-digit-looking character in radix name?
>
> hexadecimal   0h
> octal             0c
> binary           0b
>
> My point being ... if there were to be a change in lexical form, a simple rule would be nice.  Of course the rule can be anything that can be coerced to a rule.  Hope this doesn't sound like a false choice :-)

No problem!

  charToUse = basename[ floor(log2(log2(base))) ];

--bb