Walter Bright <newshou...@digitalmars.com> writes: > I can see that the syntax octal!677 can be a bit off-putting at first, > simply because it is not what we're used to. But give it a chance.
Thought I'd test drive octal!. I'm still on v2.051 though.
writefln("%o", octal!777); -> 777
writefln("%o", octal!0777); -> 511 (0ops)
Maybe in a new version the second line will generate a error for the
leading zero on the second line?
--
Dan
