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.
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? > > Stewart.
