Am 03.04.2011 02:23, schrieb Francisco Almeida: > 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 agree. > > I am concerned about the choice of relegating a kind of number literal to a > library template. Doesn't this needlessly impact performance? No, it's a template, so it's evaluated at compile-time and doesn't impact (runtime) 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? > How often do you use octal numbers?
