From the specs:
" Octal integers are a sequence of octal digits preceded by a '0'."

I wanted to verify that octal is represented by digits preceded by a zero, as the spec says.  Is this true?

"DemmeGod" <me@demmegod.com> wrote in message news:pan.2004.05.25.01.03.32.701233@demmegod.com...
> From the specs:
> " Octal integers are a sequence of octal digits preceded by a '0'."
>
> I wanted to verify that octal is represented by digits preceded by a zero, as the spec says.  Is this true?

Yes.

An octal looks like this

01
07
0123

or this

\1 \7 \123

By the way you don't believe Walter?

DemmeGod wrote:
> From the specs:
> " Octal integers are a sequence of octal digits preceded by a '0'."
> 
> I wanted to verify that octal is represented by digits preceded by a zero,
> as the spec says.  Is this true?

From Specs:
"	Octal:
		0 OctalDigits"

That zero looked like an uppercase 'o' in my browser.  Just wanted to make sure.

On Tue, 25 May 2004 03:11:50 +0200, Stephan Wienczny wrote:

> An octal looks like this
> 
> 01
> 07
> 0123
> 
> or this
> 
> \1 \7 \123
> 
> By the way you don't believe Walter?
> 
> DemmeGod wrote:
>> From the specs:
>> " Octal integers are a sequence of octal digits preceded by a '0'."
>> 
>> I wanted to verify that octal is represented by digits preceded by a zero, as the spec says.  Is this true?

On Mon, 24 May 2004 21:03:33 -0400, DemmeGod wrote:

> From the specs:
> " Octal integers are a sequence of octal digits preceded by a '0'."
> 
> I wanted to verify that octal is represented by digits preceded by a zero, as the spec says.  Is this true?

Why not try it?

int main(char[][] args) { int x = 0777; return 0; }

It'll take a lot less time than posting.

Mike Swieton
__
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having
both at once.
	- Lazarus Long (Robert A. Heinlein)

>An octal looks like this
>
>01
>07
>0123
>
>or this
>
>\1 \7 \123
>

BTW, what about deprecating octals starting with 0?

I keep winning bets with C and C++ programmers about 010 == 8 (some old C
compilers accepted 010 == 08), but it's a bit annoying.
Many beginners start aligning numbers with leading 0s just to discover that it
doesn't work for historical reasons unknown to the most.

Moreover I don't see any practical use for octal numbers nowadays, and I don't think it's worth supporting them for very old legacy C code (that has to be rewritten anyway IMHO).

Ciao

Mike Swieton wrote:
<snip>
> Why not try it?
> 
> int main(char[][] args) { int x = 0777; return 0; }
> 
> It'll take a lot less time than posting.

Depends on whether D compiler and Internet connection are in the same place, as mine aren't for instance.

But it's also quite simple to c&p stuff from a typical browser into something that lets you see it in a font that clearly distinguishes O and 0.  (Of course, messing with browser settings also tends to work, though not always.)

Stewart.

-- 
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox, aside from its being the unfortunate victim of intensive mail-bombing at the moment.  Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.

Roberto Mariottini wrote:

>>An octal looks like this
>>
>>01
>>07
>>0123
>>
>>or this
>>
>>\1 \7 \123
>>
> 
> 
> BTW, what about deprecating octals starting with 0?
> 
> I keep winning bets with C and C++ programmers about 010 == 8 (some old C
> compilers accepted 010 == 08), but it's a bit annoying.
> Many beginners start aligning numbers with leading 0s just to discover that it
> doesn't work for historical reasons unknown to the most.
> 
> Moreover I don't see any practical use for octal numbers nowadays, and I don't
> think it's worth supporting them for very old legacy C code (that has to be
> rewritten anyway IMHO).

Octal numbers still have their uses here and there. (like Unix file permission attributes)

I wouldn't be against changing the syntax, though.  How about 0o10 == 10?  It's somewhat symmetrical with the 0x hex notation, and is clearly not a decimal integer.

 -- andy

>I wouldn't be against changing the syntax, though.  How about 0o10 == 10?  It's somewhat symmetrical with the 0x hex notation, and is clearly not a decimal integer.

I like that, but don't you nean  0o10 == 8 (decimal)? And then mightn't it be possible to remove that leading zero from these and hexes as redundant?

The leading 0 makes it easier to lex.
If you find a 0 you know it will be a number. If you only had o what would you do in this case:

o123

This is an valid identifier and if we drop the 0 a valid number ;-(

Stephan

Juan C wrote:

>>I wouldn't be against changing the syntax, though.  How about 0o10 == 10?  It's somewhat symmetrical with the 0x hex notation, and is clearly not a decimal integer.
> 
> 
> I like that, but don't you nean  0o10 == 8 (decimal)? And then mightn't it be
> possible to remove that leading zero from these and hexes as redundant?
> 
>