"Steven Schveighoffer" <schvei...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:op.vtezxnlweav7ka@steve-laptop... > 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 >
Yea, I know, but I think binary is useful enough to justify the built-in syntax. 'Course, app developers and web developers may not agree, but I come from a heavy low-level background and D is supposed to be a systems language (which has always been one of its killer features for me). > 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... > I've actually used base 4 *more* than I've used octal. I've never used octal (in code, at least), but Parallax's Propeller microcontroller has some video-out capabilities that involve some 2-bit stuff, and the built-in SPIN language has a base-4 syntax that suits those purposes perfectly. Of course, even given that, I *still* have no particular interest in D gaining any built-in 0q01230123 syntax for it.
