Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
and what the heck does "\000000\000000000\000\0000" mean?
It doesn't matter, because if you're translating C code to D, the code
is probably correct even if you don't know what it means.
Note that in C, you can't reasonably have \0 embedded in a string. But
in both D and C# you can. So the "\0000" case isn't really a problem for
C. It's far more likely in D that someone would write:
"1st\02nd\03rd\04th\0";
and expect it to work.
I doubt there is much extant C code which uses octal. Automated
translations of octal literals can be done accurately, and you're even
supplying the 'htod' converter!
htod is not intended for creating implementation source code. It's just
for headers. I expect most C translations will be done by hand.
The point is that a reasonable fraction of the few remaining instances
of octal literals, will be machine translated, and will therefore be
free from these errors.
Note that C# doesn't have octal literals, but does include \0. So
there's a precedent for dropping them. This also means that right now,
converting code from C# to D can also introduce obscure bugs. I'd
argue that that's a scenario that is at least as likely as bugs from C.
It is a good point, but I don't see people translating C# to D. But I do
see translating C to D (I do it myself!).
I think the argument for octal is very, very weak.
The issue is really the cost of it being in vs the benefit of pulling it
out. I see very little cost of leaving it in, so it doesn't need much
benefit to make it worthwhile.
Inertia is the strongest argument, I think.
Octal-related bugs may occur
(1) when translating from ancient C code, if octal is removed.
(2) when translating from C#, if octal is retained.
(3) when writing new D code, if octal is retained.
IMHO, (2) and (3) are more probable than (1). However, all 3 cases are
quite unlikely. It's extremely low on the list of priorities.
