On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 05:17:00PM +1100, Daniel Murphy wrote:
> I had a look at moving them from deprecated to error, but druntime
> uses them extensively in the os headers. I think we need a better
> solution than a template in the standard library - you shouldn't need
> a dependency on phobos t
I had a look at moving them from deprecated to error, but druntime uses them
extensively in the os headers. I think we need a better solution than a
template in the standard library - you shouldn't need a dependency on phobos
to use them, and the compiler shouldn't directly reference anything
On 2/11/2012 10:43 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
$ dmd test.d
$ test.d(5): octal literals 0744 are deprecated, use std.conv.octal!744 instead
I was inordinately proud of that error message :-)
On 2/11/2012 10:43 AM, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
You can only use them with the -d switch.
And 0744 will never be valid D code, for the simple reason that code moved over
from C would silently break in awful ways.
On 02/11/2012 07:05 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 06:48:20PM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
Octals are going away, the use of them in Phobos have been removed and
Walter confirmed this too afaik.
So the question is, how will things like "0744" and "098" be interpreted
once octal
On Saturday, February 11, 2012 10:05:40 H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 06:48:20PM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> > Octals are going away, the use of them in Phobos have been removed and
> > Walter confirmed this too afaik.
>
> So the question is, how will things like "0744" and "098"
On 2/11/12, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 06:48:20PM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
>> Octals are going away, the use of them in Phobos have been removed and
>> Walter confirmed this too afaik.
>
> So the question is, how will things like "0744" and "098" be interpreted
> once octals
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 06:48:20PM +0100, Andrej Mitrovic wrote:
> Octals are going away, the use of them in Phobos have been removed and
> Walter confirmed this too afaik.
So the question is, how will things like "0744" and "098" be interpreted
once octals have gone away? Will they still be rejec
Octals are going away, the use of them in Phobos have been removed and
Walter confirmed this too afaik.
On Sat, Feb 11, 2012 at 05:37:17PM +0100, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 02/11/2012 05:00 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> >Alright, I'm plodding along slowly with my D lexer, and I'm running into
> >an interesting case. According to the spec, int literals that begin with
> >'0' are supposed to be octal, with the e
On 02/11/2012 05:00 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
Alright, I'm plodding along slowly with my D lexer, and I'm running into
an interesting case. According to the spec, int literals that begin with
'0' are supposed to be octal, with the exception of "0" itself, which is
decimal 0. DecimalInteger is defined
OT: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=5132
On 02/11/2012 10:06 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
interpreted differently is just errors waiting to happen.
As an error. Because they're allowed in C/C++/etc having them accepted by D
but interpreted differently is just errors waiting to happen.
"H. S. Teoh" wrote in message
news:mailman.230.1328975949.20196.digitalmar...@puremagic.com...
> Alright, I'm plodding along slowly with my D lexer, and I'm
Alright, I'm plodding along slowly with my D lexer, and I'm running into
an interesting case. According to the spec, int literals that begin with
'0' are supposed to be octal, with the exception of "0" itself, which is
decimal 0. DecimalInteger is defined to begin with a non-zero digit
followed by
14 matches
Mail list logo
