Number literals (Was: Re: Case Range Statement ..)

[BCS]

Hello Walter,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>>> BCS wrote:
>>> 
>>>> What would you sell it outright for? As in I would own it and have
>>>> every right I would have if I was the original author.
>>>> 
>>> As a non-exclusive license, probably $500.
>>> 
>> Not a license, *own*. As in I *own* my hat. (ignoring the question of
>> would you still own your copy)
>> 
> You can't have two people own the same copyright. One owns the
> copyright, and the other has a non-exclusive license to do whatever he
> wants with it. The other has effective ownership, but it's done as a
> license.
> 
> I'm not going to transfer the copyright, because then what am I going
> to put in the D compiler?
> 

I didn't expect you would even consider it and I can easely see some pointy 
haired boss refusing to allow licenced code into a product.

>> But that's really beside the point. I could come up with several
>> somewhat reasonable reasons why "just use my code" isn't a good
>> answer to having gotcha in the lexical spec. If you really want to go
>> that way, then the lexical spec should officially BE the lexer source
>> code.
>> 
> I don't see where the "gotcha" is. It's not trivial, but it's
> specifiable, and the code implementing it is there and is correct.
> 

well for one thing the spec is wrong:  http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1466