http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=2656
Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> changed:
What |Removed |Added
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Summary|Require 0o format for octal |Remove octal literals
|literals |
--- Comment #11 from Don <clugd...@yahoo.com.au> 2010-03-13 12:19:22 PST ---
(In reply to comment #10)
> (In reply to comment #9)
> > I agree that the "0o" prefix is not very readable.
> >
> > What about using Octal!50 instead (no leading zero. No string)?
>
> Unfortunately that would preclude expressing large numbers in octal.
I don't think it matters what we do. The point is, octal literals are
*extremely* obscure, and don't need to be in the core language, especially with
such a subtle, bug-prone syntax.
If we agree to remove them from the core language, decision about the syntax
should be treated the same as any other standard library syntax issue. It's not
urgent to decide library naming issues right now.
--
Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email
------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
