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

[BCS]

Hello Walter,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>>> 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
>> 
> That issue has nothing to do with octal literals, and removing them
> will have no affect on it.
> 

I think this strand of the thread (and what I was talking about) was not 
about octal but about complexity in the lexical design. That bugzilla issue 
was brought up as an issue and IS the first point that comes to my mind in 
that direction. disallowing leading or trailing decimal points would fix 
that issue and I for one would approve of it on that grounds as well as the 
the other advantages (it's harder to read wrong for one thing).