Walter Bright Wrote: > On 4/2/2011 3:27 PM, ulrik.mikaels...@gmail.com wrote: > > As I wrote, I think it's great that 010 != 8 anymore. > > 010, etc., will now be errors. They will not be 10 decimal. > > Also, the literals 00, 01, ..., 07 will still be accepted without complaint. > 08, > 09, etc. will of course be errors.
This doesn't feel right, though. Either you permit leading numbers with leading zeroes to be read as decimals, or you forbid them unless they are 0x... or 0b... . I am concerned about the choice of relegating a kind of number literal to a library template. Doesn't this needlessly impact performance? Granted, the 0123 syntax was error prone and we're all glad it's gone, but aren't there better alternatives such as 0o123 or 0q123, for example?
