"Jonathan M Davis" <jmdavisp...@gmx.com> wrote in message news:mailman.508.1329531876.20196.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com... > > 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. >
While we can't ever allow leading zeroes in the general case, to catch errors porting ocal literals from c family languages, 08 and 09 could actually be supported in the future.
