"Don" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > bearophile wrote: >> Nick Sabalausky: >>> Disagree. Octal can often useful on low-level embedded stuff. >> >> I think the point was to improve the syntax of octal numbers, not to >> remove them. So 0125 becomes a syntax error (as usual to keep >> compatibility with C, otherwise it's better to make it just mean 125), >> and invent a less error-prone syntax for octal numbers. For example >> 0oxxxx. > > Exactly. I just think it's ridiculous that octal has a privileged syntax: > int a = 06; > int b = 09; > either both lines should compile, or neither. > I like the 0c635 syntax. >
Geez! I had no idea prepending a zero made it octal. That's terrible.
