On 02/11/2011 10:54 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"spir"<denis.s...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.1504.1297453559.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
Hello,
Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This
is due in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing"
int numbers using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if
one feeds back results into D code, they are interpreted as octal...
Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-)
Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is
bug-prone: prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!).
Several programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn,
which is consistent with common hex& bin notations and cannot lead to
misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible;
and would not be misleading for C coders.
Yea, octal!"nnn" has already made the exceedingly rare uses of octal
literals completely obsolete *long* ago. I know I for one am getting really
tired of this completely unnecessary landmine in the language continuing to
exist. The heck with std.xml, if anything, *this* needs nuked. If silently
changed behavior is a problem, then just make it an error. Done. Minefield
cleared.
Thanks you (and Bearohile, IIRC) for the tip about octal!"nnn". Useless for me,
unfortunately, since my problem (as you suggest) is not with how to write them,
but the sheer existence of this $%*£µ#! notation ;-) What we need is a time
bomb sent to ~ 1973.
Denis
--
_________________
vita es estrany
spir.wikidot.com
