spir wrote: > On 04/03/2011 02:52 AM, bearophile wrote: >> Michel Fortin: >> >>> The new syntax is certainly usable, it's just inelegant and hackish. >>> Its your language, it's your choice, and I'll admit it won't affect me >>> much. >> >> My suggestions for Walter are: >> - To turn 01 .. 07 too into errors; >> - to deprecate the octal! Phobos template. >> - To introduce the 0o leading that works from 0o0 to the uint.max; >> - To change the new error message, so it suggests to use 0o. >> - To ask opinions to the community here next time before changing things >> in D2/D3 :-) > > I'm very surprised of this move -- aside the concrete details. What I > point out here is how far sentiments about what is "obvious" or "correct" > can be, for a given issue, that most of us considered wrong for the same > reason. > > When I introduced the topic of octal notation 0nnn beeing bad, I was 100% > sure that (if a move was ever made) either octals would be thrown out of D > all together for beeing nearly useless, or the syntax would be fixed -- > the "obvious" "correct" solution if octals remain. While I new about > octal!, this was so hackish and obviously wrong *for me*, that I did not > even imagine one second it could become the "official" solution. > I'm certainly not the only one. > Questions of detail, sure, but we all know what the details hide ;-) > > Denis
I don't understand why it is hackish if it's a pure library approach. (it is right?) I find it actually rather nice that D can do this. This is not a syntax change, octals are out of the language and the library now has an octal template. Where's the problem?