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

"Klaus Meyer" <km-news1@onlinehome.de> wrote in message news:aossa5$2ih$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....

Yeah, the syntax is unfortunate. I would rather say, change the octal literal syntax.

> --cut--
> Klaus

Sandor