removal of cruft from D

[Bill Baxter]

On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Leandro Lucarella <llucax at gmail.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter, el 20 de noviembre a las 17:18 me escribiste:
>> 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?
>
> I didn't get the... joke?

It's a quote from a Monty Python sketch.  I think I heard you're
supposed to use as many Monty Python quotes as possible when
discussing Python.

--bb