Is the world coming to an end?

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Steven Schveighoffer" <schveiguy at yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:op.vtezxnlweav7ka at steve-laptop...
> On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:27:09 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
>
>> "bearophile" <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com> wrote in message
>> news:inacud$10b$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> Lars T. Kyllingstad:
>>>
>>>> > I agree that 0b could and should be deprecated.
>>>>
>>>> Ditto.
>>>
>>> No please :-)
>>>
>>
>> Yea, I'm perfectly fine with omitting built-in octal literals, but I'll 
>> jump
>> deep into the "bitch and moan" ship if the deprication-axe gets aimed at
>> binary.
>
> I think the idea is that 0b1111_1111 is replaced with binary!1111_1111
>

Yea, I know, but I think binary is useful enough to justify the built-in 
syntax. 'Course, app developers and web developers may not agree, but I come 
from a heavy low-level background and D is supposed to be a systems language 
(which has always been one of its killer features for me).

> Note, someone earlier brought up that hexadecimal cannot really go this 
> route because abcd is also a valid symbol name.  Plus hexadecimal is 
> infinitely more useful.
>
> BTW, I'd be on Nick's side if we drop 0b syntax, simply because it doesn't 
> hurt to have it.  Yeah, it's inconsistent, so what?  Who cares?  We also 
> don't have base 3, base 4, base 5, .. literals so why isn't anyone 
> complaining about those?  I've used every one of those just as much as 
> I've used octal in programming...
>

I've actually used base 4 *more* than I've used octal. I've never used octal 
(in code, at least), but Parallax's Propeller microcontroller has some 
video-out capabilities that involve some 2-bit stuff, and the built-in SPIN 
language has a base-4 syntax that suits those purposes perfectly. Of course, 
even given that, I *still* have no particular interest in D gaining any 
built-in 0q01230123 syntax for it.