Stewart Gordon smjg_1...@yahoo.com wrote in message
news:ijgpgb$1apc$1...@digitalmars.com...
And is [octal] still the form of CompuServe user IDs?
Do those still exist?
On 12/02/2011 18:27, Don wrote:
spir wrote:
snip
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
On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 17:52:34 -0500, Tomek Sowiński j...@ask.me 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
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
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...
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
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.
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
spir denis.s...@gmail.com 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
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
On 02/11/2011 10:54 PM, Nick Sabalausky wrote:
spirdenis.s...@gmail.com 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
11 matches
Mail list logo
