Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[H. S. Teoh]

On Sat, Sep 10, 2022 at 11:57:51PM +0200, Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d wrote:
[...]
> Which situation is the simplest one?
> 
> a)
> 
> 0x... for hexadecimal
> 0o... for octal
> 0b... for binary
> 
> 
> b)
> 
> 0x... for hexadecimal
> std.conv.octal!"..." for octal
> 0b"..." for binary
> 
> 
> c)
> 
> 0x... for hexadecimal
> std.conv.octal!"..." for octal
> std.conv.binary!"..." for binary

There's also:

d)

std.conv.hex!"..." for hexadecimal
std.conv.octal!"..." for hexadecimal
std.conv.binary!"..." for hexadecimal

Which, judging by the way things are going, is where we're headed.  The
logical conclusion of which is:

e)

std.conv.hex!"..." for hexadecimal
std.conv.octal!"..." for hexadecimal
std.conv.binary!"..." for hexadecimal
std.conv.decimal!"..." for decimal - because the language becomes *much*
	simpler when it doesn't natively support any integer literals at
	all.

:-P


T

-- 
Being able to learn is a great learning; being able to unlearn is a greater learning.