removal of cruft from D

[BCS]

Hello KennyTM~,

> On Nov 21, 09 15:40, Yigal Chripun wrote:
> 
>> On 21/11/2009 02:45, Andrei Alexandrescu 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.
>>> 
>>> Andrei
>>> 
>> in the short term I wouldn't mind if they would be typed as:
>> 0baseEightXXX or what ever as long as the current syntax is removed.
>> 
>> in the long term, I'd like to see a more general syntax that allows
>> to
>> write numbers in any base.
>> something like:
>> [base]n[number] - e.g. 16nA0FF, 2n0101, 18nGH129, etc.
>> also define syntax to write a list of digits:
>> 1024n[1005, 452, 645, 16nFFF] // each digit can also be defined in
>> arbitrary base
> What's the point of using bases other than 2, 8, 10, 16, 36 and 64?
> 

Base 13 is useful in literature.