removal of cruft from D

Bill Baxter wbaxter at gmail.com
Fri Nov 20 18:08:54 PST 2009


On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 6:01 PM, Justin Johansson <no at spam.com> wrote:
> Bill Baxter Wrote:
>
>> 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
>
> What?  I don't know that!
>
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm

Well here ya go then:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_f_p0CgPeyA
Courtesy of Bruce, Bruce, Bruce, and myself.

--bb



More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list