"Daniel Gibson" <metalcae...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:in8jko$knb$7...@digitalmars.com... > Am 03.04.2011 03:39, schrieb Walter Bright: >> On 4/2/2011 4:52 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote: >>> Am 03.04.2011 01:50, schrieb Walter Bright: >>>> 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. >>> >>> That feels pretty inconsistent. >> >> It is inconsistent. One of the interesting things about "good" user >> interface >> design is it is awfully inconsistent. >> >> The thing is, I ran into a bunch of D code that used 01, 03, etc. They >> weren't >> octal, and it seemed a pity to break it. > > They were octal, it just didn't make a difference. I don't see a reason to > use > them (if not as octals) anyway. > > Time will tell but I wouldn't be surprised if sooner or later somebody > wonders > why 00, 01..07 work, but 08 etc don't and complains about weird corner > cases ;) >
Yea, but I bet people would also complain if it were disallowed. "There's no ambiguity here! Why's it whining about something that's obviously guaranteed to work?!"
