On Tuesday, 17 July 2012 at 21:53:50 UTC, Dave X. wrote:
I'm a fresh college graduate who just got a job as a software
developer, and I have been enthusiastically watching D for a
while now (I program primarily in Java and C). I have some
functional programming experience in Haskell and Scala as well.
I like using octal numbers, and I've always been interested in
D's octal literals. I'm glad to see that the traditional syntax
of C's octal literals is being replaced by a more readable one.
However, I can't help but think that the template solution
("octal!nnn") is a little too roundabout; is there a reason
that that the "0o" prefix, which is already well established in
languages like Haskell, OCaml, and Python, is not used?
Coming from C++, the only time I've EVER seen octals used is "by
accident" when developers try to 0-align his variables. Good
riddance to the "0" prefix. Seriously >:(
That said, I did not know of this "0o" prefix. It sounds like a
good idea, and I see no reason not to add it, other than it is
hard work for the compiler devs of course, who already have a lot
of work. :)
