www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D - Re: removal of cruft from D

Bill Baxter Wrote:

 On Fri, Nov 20, 2009 at 5:22 PM, Justin Johansson <no spam.com> wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 Ellery Newcomer wrote:
 Nick Sabalausky wrote:
 2. Octal literals! I think it'd be great to have a new octal syntax, or even
 better, a general any-positive-inter-base syntax. But until that finally
 happens, I don't want "010 == 8" preserved. And I don't think the ability to
 have an octal literal is important enough that lacking it for a while is a
 problem. And if porting-from-C really has to be an issue, then just make
 0[0-9_]+ an error for a transitionary period (or forever - it'd at least be
 better than maintaining "010 == 8").

 3. Also the comma operator, but that's already been recently discussed.

hex literal prefix: 0x, not 0h => octal literal prefix: 0c, not 0o </bikeshed>

This I'm on board with. 0o is too much like a practical joke.

Okay let's go for some consistency then. First try. Radix character comes from 3rd character of radix name. hexadecimal   0x octal             0t binary           0n Or, second try, how about first non-digit-looking character in radix name? hexadecimal   0h octal             0c binary           0b My point being ... if there were to be a change in lexical form, a simple rule would be nice.  Of course the rule can be anything that can be coerced to a rule.  Hope this doesn't sound like a false choice :-)

No problem! charToUse = basename[ floor(log2(log2(base))) ]; --bb

Sweet. I'm curious though, have you ever programmed in BrainF? Ha :-)
Nov 20 2009