Walter Bright wrote: > And yes, you can make a reasonable case that 0b should be ditched > for the same reason.
I know people already think of the isIntegral versions of octal as a hack, but I see that as one reason why binary wouldn't work as well as a template: binary!1111_1111_0000_0000 Overflow city! Such long numbers aren't terribly common in octal, but they /are/ in binary. Of course, you can just use the string version, so it isn't a big deal, but nevertheless, it is a difference. btw, it might be worth considering a change to overflow. Suppose there was a way to get arbitrary size ints passed to a template. Then, the library could do its own overflow checks, or not, enabling things like bigint literals in this same fashion. Though, I don't think it's a big benefit. It'd be really weird to use (a new compile time only datatype?) And if you actually need that, the string version works just fine. So all in all I don't think it's worth it.
