On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 16:38:58 UTC, Adam Ruppe wrote:
>On Thursday, 7 April 2022 at 16:28:39 UTC, kdevel wrote:
>That was not my objection. My point is that it won't compile for certain valid octal literals.
They're not actually octal literals.
You certainly don't want to dispute that
01777777777777777777777
is actually an octal literal whose value fits in a ulong?
>The implementation is (ridiculously) overcomplicated - ironically, as a result of code review nitpicking types - but the concept isn't: it pretends it is an octal literal.
This concept is dubious and that is what bothers me.
>This is a convenience method
Made to save two keystrokes after having typed six additional ones compared to C/C++?
>that is not expected to work for all possible values, which is why the string
one exists.
The method does not work for most of the possible octal literals whose values fit in a ulong. I would call it an inconvenience method.