Regarding the proposed Binray Literals Deprecation

[Adam D Ruppe]

On Saturday, 10 September 2022 at 02:17:30 UTC, Walter Bright 
wrote:
> octal!433 is really not much different from 0433. It could even 
> be shortened to o!433, exactly the same number of characters as 
> 0o433.

You snipped the relevant point about having to change context to 
add the import. That's objectively not a big deal but 
subjectively proves to be a barrier to adoption.

(I do think it would be a bit better too if it was `core.octal` 
instead of `std.conv` so it brings in a bit less baggage too.)

> The downside is the language gets bigger and more complex

The question of bigger languages is with interaction between 
features. Octal literals are about the most trivial addition you 
can do since it doesn't interact with anything else.

> and people who don't come from a C background wonder why their 
> 093 integer isn't 93.

This is a completely separate issue that nobody is talking about 
changing here. While I'd love for it to be good, it is probably 
practical to keep a deprecation in place so the C programmers can 
be educated.

> Nobody would ever write that unless they used octal exactly once

This is demonstrably untrue. Local imports are common in D, even 
when used repeatedly.

> Let's simplify D.

This doesn't achieve anything. If you carry on with this path, 
you're gonna force a fork of the language. Is that what you want?