On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:38:10 Stewart Gordon wrote: > On 15/02/2012 16:41, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > <snip> > > > They're not left over at all, and they have nothing to do with octal. > > <snip> > > They are something to do with octal: because in D an integer literal > beginning with 0 is defined to be octal, the compiler must interpret them > as such if it is going to accept them at all. > > Of course, under current D2 without -d, the compiler rejects zero-led > integer literals greater than 07. But it's because of this octal legacy > that it accepts up to 07 but not 08, 09 or 010.
They have nothing to do with octal in that they were not intentionally octal. I was merely using the leading 0 without thinking about it, because having leading 0s generally makes more sense when dealing with the date/time stuff. The fact that they were octal is incidental. They result in the same number either way, save for 08 and 09 not working. > Still, what's the long-term plan? To remove octal literals completely, and > allow decimal literals to have leading 0s? Or to continue to allow just up > to 07 until the end of time? I expect that we will never allow decimal literals with leading 0s which would end up with different numbers than they would if we supported octal literals, because otherwise any C/C++ code which is ported to D and uses octal literals will then compile with different semantics, and that's generally verboten in D (there are a few exceptions, but they're quite rare). I'm not aware of Walter actually having stated what his longterm plan is though. - Jonathan M Davis
