Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
spir Wrote: > Hello, > > Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This is > due > in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" int numbers > using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if one feeds back > results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... > Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) > > Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is > bug-prone: > prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Several > programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is > consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to > misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and > would not be misleading for C coders. Fine with me. I've never used octal numbers (intently!). I guess some notation is needed for them, if not for historical reasons.
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
We actually have a library replacement for octal literals: http://dpldocs.info/octal But until the C style syntax is disallowed, it doesn't change anything. But, Walter is resistant to the change, last I knew.
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
spir: > like 0onnn, which is > consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to > misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and > would not be misleading for C coders. The 0nnn octal syntax is bug-prone, and not explicit, it's out of place in a language like D that's designed to be a bit safer than C. The 0onnn syntax adopted by Python3 is safer, more explicit, it's good enough. But the leading zero syntax can't be kept in D for backwards C compatibility, so it needs to be just disallowed statically... Walter likes the C octal syntax as a personal thing. Andrei prefers a syntax like octal! that's less compact, even more explicit, library-defined, and it has a corner case (when numbers become very large you need a string): http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/phobos/std_conv.html#octal Bye, bearophile
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
"spir" wrote in message news:mailman.1504.1297453559.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... > Hello, > > Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This > is due in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" > int numbers using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if > one feeds back results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... > Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) > > Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is > bug-prone: prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). > Several programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, > which is consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to > misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; > and would not be misleading for C coders. > Yea, octal!"nnn" has already made the exceedingly rare uses of octal literals completely obsolete *long* ago. I know I for one am getting really tired of this completely unnecessary landmine in the language continuing to exist. The heck with std.xml, if anything, *this* needs nuked. If silently changed behavior is a problem, then just make it an error. Done. Minefield cleared.
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
spir napisał: > Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This is > due > in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" int numbers > using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if one feeds back > results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... > Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) > > Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is > bug-prone: > prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Several > programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is > consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to > misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and > would not be misleading for C coders. This has been discussed before. There's octal!123 in Phobos if you don't like these confusing literals but they stay because Walter likes them. -- Tomek
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
On 02/11/2011 10:54 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote: "spir" wrote in message news:mailman.1504.1297453559.4748.digitalmar...@puremagic.com... Hello, Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This is due in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" int numbers using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if one feeds back results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is bug-prone: prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Several programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is consistent with common hex& bin notations and cannot lead to misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and would not be misleading for C coders. Yea, octal!"nnn" has already made the exceedingly rare uses of octal literals completely obsolete *long* ago. I know I for one am getting really tired of this completely unnecessary landmine in the language continuing to exist. The heck with std.xml, if anything, *this* needs nuked. If silently changed behavior is a problem, then just make it an error. Done. Minefield cleared. Thanks you (and Bearohile, IIRC) for the tip about octal!"nnn". Useless for me, unfortunately, since my problem (as you suggest) is not with how to write them, but the sheer existence of this $%*£µ#! notation ;-) What we need is a time bomb sent to ~ 1973. Denis -- _ vita es estrany spir.wikidot.com
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
spir wrote: Hello, Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This is due in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" int numbers using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if one feeds back results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is bug-prone: prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Several programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and would not be misleading for C coders. Denis Octal should just be dropped entirely. Retaining built-in octal literals is like retaining support for EBCDIC. It's a relic of a time before hexadecimal was invented.
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:52:34 -0500, Tomek Sowiński wrote: spir napisał: Just had a strange bug --in a test func!-- caused by this notation. This is due in my case to the practice (common, I guess) of "pretty printing" int numbers using %0nd or %0ns format, to get a nice alignment. Then, if one feeds back results into D code, they are interpreted as octal... Now, i know it: will pad with spaces instead ;-) Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is bug-prone: prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Several programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and would not be misleading for C coders. This has been discussed before. There's octal!123 in Phobos if you don't like these confusing literals but they stay because Walter likes them. I think the point is he *doesn't* want to use octal literals. -Steve
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
On 12/02/2011 18:27, Don wrote: spir wrote: Copying a string'ed integer is indeed not the only this notation is bug-prone: prefixing a number with '0' should not change its value (!). Indeed. Even more confusing is that when it's a floating point it doesn't. But see http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=3251 Several programming languages switched to another notation; like 0onnn, which is consistent with common hex & bin notations and cannot lead to misinterpretation. Such a change would be, I guess, backward compatible; and would not be misleading for C coders. Indeed, does anyone know why the 0xxx notation was chosen in the first place? Octal should just be dropped entirely. Retaining built-in octal literals is like retaining support for EBCDIC. It's a relic of a time before hexadecimal was invented. I once recall hearing that octal's main use lay on old mainframes that worked in 15-bit units. But it lives on in Unix file permission settings. And is it still the form of CompuServe user IDs? Stewart.
Re: 0nnn octal notation considered harmful
"Stewart Gordon" wrote in message news:ijgpgb$1apc$1...@digitalmars.com... > > And is [octal] still the form of CompuServe user IDs? > Do those still exist?
