On Sat, 2011-04-02 at 18:20 -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > 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.
The problem is not that it is a poor solution in isolation, it is the conflict between 0b... and 0x.. versus octal!... Why is octal being discriminated against compared to binary and hexadecimal? -- Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder t: +44 20 7585 2200 voip: sip:russel.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@russel.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
