Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 9/13/22 3:47 PM, Don Allen wrote:

> I would also add that talking about user-friendly/unfriendly doesn't 
> make a lot of sense unless you state the purpose of the literal. If I 
> wanted to initialize an int to the number of states in the US, no one 
> sane would write
> ````
> int n_us_states = 0b110010
> ````
> If I were defining a mask to extract a field from a hardware register, I 
> might use a binary literal, though I personally would use the shifting 
> technique I described in an earlier post.

Agreed. The purpose is important.

If I wanted to specify an "every third bit set" mask, in hex it would be 
`0x924924924...`. But in binary it is `0b100100100100...`. The second 
version is immediately clear what it is, whereas the first is not.

While hex is usually clearer than decimal, it's not always as clear as 
binary.

BTW, you know how I figured out that 924 pattern? In the easiest way 
possible of course!

```d
writefln("%x", 0b100100100100100100100100);
```

-Steve