On 4/2/11 6:36 PM, Daniel Gibson wrote:
Am 03.04.2011 01:20, schrieb Andrei Alexandrescu:
On 4/2/11 5:27 PM, ulrik.mikaels...@gmail.com wrote:
A D-newbie would probably be able to guess 0o for octal, but hardly
octal!. octal! breaks the rule of least surprise.
I fail to infer how using the word "octal" for an octal literal is surprising at
all.
This thread is a good example that it's impossible to please everyone. Although
past discussions made it clear that most everyone found leading 0 a poor
convention for octal numbers, now not only the consensus is weaker, but some
actually claim a different solution is superior. If that were chosen, then all
of a sudden octal!777 would have become suddenly sexy and so on.
The grass is always greener on the other side...
Andrei
I don't think the consensus that a leading 0 is a poor convention for octal
numbers is weaker now - so far nobody wants the old syntax back :)
Some discussions on IRC suggest otherwise.
Andrei
