On Sun, 03 Apr 2011 14:27:09 -0400, Nick Sabalausky <a@a.a> wrote:
"bearophile" <bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:inacud$10b$1...@digitalmars.com...
Lars T. Kyllingstad:
> I agree that 0b could and should be deprecated.
Ditto.
No please :-)
Yea, I'm perfectly fine with omitting built-in octal literals, but I'll
jump
deep into the "bitch and moan" ship if the deprication-axe gets aimed at
binary.
I think the idea is that 0b1111_1111 is replaced with binary!1111_1111
Note, someone earlier brought up that hexadecimal cannot really go this
route because abcd is also a valid symbol name. Plus hexadecimal is
infinitely more useful.
BTW, I'd be on Nick's side if we drop 0b syntax, simply because it doesn't
hurt to have it. Yeah, it's inconsistent, so what? Who cares? We also
don't have base 3, base 4, base 5, .. literals so why isn't anyone
complaining about those? I've used every one of those just as much as
I've used octal in programming...
-Steve
