spir napisał: > Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This is > due > in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" int numbers > using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if one feeds back > results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... > Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) > > Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is > bug-prone: > prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Several > programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is > consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to > misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and > would not be misleading for C coders.
This has been discussed before. There's octal!123 in Phobos if you don't like these confusing literals but they stay because Walter likes them. -- Tomek
