01777777777777777777777 [std.conv.octal]

[kdevel]

On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 15:01:02 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 4/7/22 10:00 AM, kdevel wrote:
>> The documentation does not explicitly mention the inherent 
>> limitation of the quoteless conversion. The two forms 
>> ``octal!<literal>`` and ``octal!<literal>"`` are treated as 
>> interchangeable.
>
> `octal!123` is a template, and as such, must be valid D code. 
> Your integer is not valid D code, so it doesn't compile.

That was never disputed.

> That doesn't mean it won't compile for valid integers.

That was not my objection. My point is that it won't compile for 
certain valid octal literals. Consider this implementation

```
template octal(ubyte decimalInteger)
{
     enum octal = 
octal!(typeof(decimalInteger))(to!string(decimalInteger));
}
```

Your argument applies to this code accordingly. But you would 
certainly halt it in the code review. Does it really make a 
qualitative difference if one writes ubyte or – as implicitly in 
the current code – ulong?

Stefan

BTW: I haven't yet taken a peek into the C header inclusion 
stuff. How are octal literals processed in that code?