On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:52:34 -0500, Tomek Sowiński <j...@ask.me> wrote:
spir napisał:
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.
This has been discussed before. There's octal!123 in Phobos if you don't
like these confusing literals but they stay because Walter likes them.
I think the point is he *doesn't* want to use octal literals.
-Steve
