Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[Walter Bright]

On 9/9/2022 4:43 PM, Adam D Ruppe wrote:
>> If you're using a lot of octal literals such that this is an issue, one 
>> wonders, what for? The only use I know of is for Unix file permissions.
> 
> I keep hitting them in random C code I'm translating. Various unix things beyond 
> file permissions and a hardware manual for a think i had to drive (an rfid chip) 
> used them for various bit triplets too.

octal!433 is really not much different from 0433. It could even be shortened to 
o!433, exactly the same number of characters as 0o433.

The reasons for adding language syntactic sugar:

1. its very commonplace

2. the workarounds are gross

Of course it's a judgement call, and I understand you see them randomly in C 
code, but does it really pay off? The downside is the language gets bigger and 
more complex, the spec gets longer, and people who don't come from a C 
background wonder why their 093 integer isn't 93.

 > the newer imported!"std.conv".octal!433 pattern

Nobody would ever write that unless they used octal exactly once, which suggests 
that octal literals aren't common enough to justify special syntax.


> I often prefer using binary literals anyway, but changing something like 0o50000 
> to binary is a little obnoxious.

I first implemented binary literals in the 1980s, thinking they were cool and 
useful. They were not and not. I haven't found a reasonable use for them, or 
ever wanted them. (I prefer writing them in hex notation, as binary literals 
take up way too much horizontal space. After all, C3 is a lot easier than 
11000011. The latter makes my eyes bleed a bit, too.)

Let's simplify D.