Am 03.04.2011 04:00, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu: > On 4/2/11 6:36 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: >> Am 03.04.2011 01:20, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu: >>> On 4/2/11 5:27 PM, ulrik.mikaels...@gmail.com wrote: >>>> A D-newbie would probably be able to guess 0o for octal, but hardly >>>> octal!. octal! breaks the rule of least surprise. >>> >>> I fail to infer how using the word "octal" for an octal literal is >>> surprising at >>> all. >>> >>> This thread is a good example that it's impossible to please everyone. >>> Although >>> past discussions made it clear that most everyone found leading 0 a poor >>> convention for octal numbers, now not only the consensus is weaker, but some >>> actually claim a different solution is superior. If that were chosen, then >>> all >>> of a sudden octal!777 would have become suddenly sexy and so on. >>> >>> The grass is always greener on the other side... >>> >>> >>> Andrei >> >> I don't think the consensus that a leading 0 is a poor convention for octal >> numbers is weaker now - so far nobody wants the old syntax back :) > > Some discussions on IRC suggest otherwise. > > Andrei
Ok. I don't hang out in the D IRC chan because the NG is time-consuming enough already ;)
