"Michel Fortin" <michel.for...@michelf.com> wrote in message news:in8f9e$1h45$1...@digitalmars.com... > On 2011-04-02 19:58:25 -0400, Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> > said: > >> On 4/2/2011 4:11 PM, Michel Fortin wrote: >>> It's funny that D (the language) has binary notation built-in (which C >>> doesn't >>> have) but no octal notation anymore (which C has). >> >> The problem with the octal literals is, as has been often complained >> about, people getting surprised by it. I've never heard of anyone being >> surprised by the binary or hex literals. > > Indeed. Isn't that a good argument for implementing octal literals the > same way as binary and hex literals? >
Octal is never really needed or used for anything but unix file permissions, so I really don't think it matters at all if it happens to be inconsistent. >> >> I think it's a feature, not a "resort", that library templates can do >> this well. I think it's far better than C++0x's user defined literals, >> for example. > > I disagree that it's better. With C++ user defined literals the user > doesn't have to find by himself whether the number fits within the range > of a regular integer literal and if not fall back to using a string as the > template argument instead. > C++'s user defined literals sound like a lexing nightmare to me.
