"Lutger Blijdestijn" <lutger.blijdest...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:in9t6a$21jb$1...@digitalmars.com... > > I don't understand why it is hackish if it's a pure library approach. (it > is > right?) I find it actually rather nice that D can do this. This is not a > syntax change, octals are out of the language and the library now has an > octal template. Where's the problem? >
Apperently, people want to get a warm fuzzy feeling from the existence of features they'll never use. Seriously, we don't have an 0t... for trinary. We don't have an 0q... for base-4 (quadrary?). We don't have any such syntax for any base other than 2, 10, and 16 (and previously 8). And how many people are bitching about those omissions? Nobody. But those omissions are *EVERY BIT* as inconsistent with decimal/hex/binary syntax as omitting octal is. But noooo, apperently we *need* 0o... for octal just simply for the sake of *it* existing, but not for any other base. So where the fuck is the consistency in the self-proclaimed "consistency" argument? And don't tell me "octal is more useful than trinary" because then you're implicitly admitting that the consistency argument is a load of crap, and you're jumping ship to the "usefulness" argument...which octal *still* looses.
