• user domain.invalid (20/20) Oct 19 2002 Hi,
• Walter (6/26) Nov 09 2002 You're probably right, octal constants do seem pointless. They harken ba...

user domain.invalid writes:

Hi,

i just found D and it looks very very interesting!

In the spec i read:

"Features To Drop
* C source code compatibility. "

I support that!

So i wonder why you not remove octal integers, because nobody really 
needs them and the are sometimes gets mixed up with decimal. In Math 99 
or 099 is the same value, but not in D (and C, C++...).
I have only seen one C source with octal, but the programer has used 
octal unintentional and so gets a nice bug! He has aligned the integer 
in columns and therfore add leading 0 to some of the integers....

A other point from Spec:

"C-style array declarations, where the [] appear to the right of the 
identifier, may be used as an alternative"

This is also needless, because D does not strive for C compatibility - or?

So i think you should remove both from D.

Is this the first wish to remove (and not add) something from D? ;-)

Regards
Klaus

"Walter" <walter digitalmars.com> writes:

You're probably right, octal constants do seem pointless. They harken back
to the pdp-11 days, when system work was done in octal. On the other hand, I
do see octal constants still used as character literals, and removing them
could cause silent bugs when converting C code to D code that uses them.

<user domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:aosrv4$27o$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 Hi,

 i just found D and it looks very very interesting!

 In the spec i read:

 "Features To Drop
 * C source code compatibility. "

 I support that!

 So i wonder why you not remove octal integers, because nobody really
 needs them and the are sometimes gets mixed up with decimal. In Math 99
 or 099 is the same value, but not in D (and C, C++...).
 I have only seen one C source with octal, but the programer has used
 octal unintentional and so gets a nice bug! He has aligned the integer
 in columns and therfore add leading 0 to some of the integers....

 A other point from Spec:

 "C-style array declarations, where the [] appear to the right of the
 identifier, may be used as an alternative"

 This is also needless, because D does not strive for C compatibility - or?

 So i think you should remove both from D.

 Is this the first wish to remove (and not add) something from D? ;-)

 Regards
 Klaus