On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:38:10 Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 15/02/2012 16:41, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
snip
They're not left over at all, and they have nothing to do with octal.
snip
They are something to do with octal: because in D an integer literal
beginning with 0 is defined
Jonathan M Davis jmdavisp...@gmx.com wrote in message
news:mailman.508.1329531876.20196.digitalmars-d-le...@puremagic.com...
They have nothing to do with octal in that they were not intentionally
octal.
I was merely using the leading 0 without thinking about it, because having
leading 0s
Where do you see those literals? I'm only seeing strings.
On 02/15/2012 09:30 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Where do you see those literals? I'm only seeing strings.
Line 8322: _assertPred!==(SysTime.fromISOString(20101222T172201),
SysTime(DateTime(2010, 12, 22, 17, 22, 01)));
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:42:04PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/15/2012 09:30 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Where do you see those literals? I'm only seeing strings.
Line 8322:
_assertPred!==(SysTime.fromISOString(20101222T172201),
SysTime(DateTime(2010, 12, 22, 17, 22, 01)));
That unittest
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 08:32:55 H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 02:42:04PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/15/2012 09:30 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Where do you see those literals? I'm only seeing strings.
Line 8322:
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 08:41:33AM -0800, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]
They're not left over at all, and they have nothing to do with octal.
It's simply a matter of the natural thing for me to do when dealing
with dates and times is to put the 0 in front of single digit numbers.
You'll note
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 17:48:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yes, I guessed as much. Which brings up a question of what
exactly octal deprecation will entail.
The goal here is to make sure things either do what they
look like, or don't compile.
010 doesn't do what it looks like to a
On Wed, Feb 15, 2012 at 06:52:09PM +0100, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
[...]
The goal here is to make sure things either do what they
look like, or don't compile.
010 doesn't do what it looks like to a person used to
decimal; it is a C octal literal for decimal 8.
So it is deprecated.
But,
On Wednesday, February 15, 2012 18:52:09 Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
On Wednesday, 15 February 2012 at 17:48:03 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Yes, I guessed as much. Which brings up a question of what
exactly octal deprecation will entail.
The goal here is to make sure things either do what they
look
On 15/02/2012 16:41, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
snip
They're not left over at all, and they have nothing to do with octal.
snip
They are something to do with octal: because in D an integer literal beginning with 0 is
defined to be octal, the compiler must interpret them as such if it is going to
On Thursday, February 16, 2012 00:38:10 Stewart Gordon wrote:
On 15/02/2012 16:41, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
snip
They're not left over at all, and they have nothing to do with octal.
snip
They are something to do with octal: because in D an integer literal
beginning with 0 is defined
OK, so I know that octals are deprecated, and the compiler will refuse
to compile code with octals unless the -deprecated flag is used.
But I find that std.datetime has literals of the form 000, 01, 02, 03,
and so on. Are these considered OK? Should my lexer accept them?
T
--
To err is human;
On 02/14/2012 10:24 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
OK, so I know that octals are deprecated, and the compiler will refuse
to compile code with octals unless the -deprecated flag is used.
But I find that std.datetime has literals of the form 000, 01, 02, 03,
and so on. Are these considered OK? Should my
14 matches
Mail list logo
