From the grammar,

FloatLiteral:
	Float
	Float Suffix
	Integer ImaginarySuffix
	Integer FloatSuffix ImaginarySuffix
	Integer RealSuffix ImaginarySuffix

it appears that dmd should be able to compile something like

ifloat f1 = 0b1001i; //doesn't like this
ifloat f2 = 010i; //doesn't treat this as octal
ifloat f3 = 0xFFFFi; //doesn't like this

if built in complex numbers are going away, this will become a non issue.

real r1 = 0b1001L; //does work!
real r2 = 010L; //does work!
real r3 = 0xFFFFL; //does work!

Yay!

float f4 = 0b1001F; //doesn't like this
float f5 = 010F; //doesn't like this
float f6 = 0xFFFFF; //umm....

Obviously, the F suffix introduces an ambiguity for hex. Not sure if the  others should be considered a problem.

What's the deal?
Is the grammar lying to me?
Is DMD not following spec?
Am I going crazy? (well, that's a given)

At the moment, I appear to be using dmd 1.033

Reply to Ellery,

> From the grammar,
> 
> FloatLiteral:
> Float
> Float Suffix
> Integer ImaginarySuffix
> Integer FloatSuffix ImaginarySuffix
> Integer RealSuffix ImaginarySuffix

I don't think "Integer" is referring to "IntegerLiteral". In fact, I think it is undefined.

BCS wrote:
> Reply to Ellery,
> 
>> From the grammar,
>>
>> FloatLiteral:
>> Float
>> Float Suffix
>> Integer ImaginarySuffix
>> Integer FloatSuffix ImaginarySuffix
>> Integer RealSuffix ImaginarySuffix
> 
> I don't think "Integer" is referring to "IntegerLiteral". In fact, I think it is undefined.
> 
> 
Umm.. Ok. I guess I'll just omit it from my grammar until it is defined...

At least for RealSuffix it appeared very much to be referring to IntegerLiteral

Reply to Ellery,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Ellery,
>> 
>>> From the grammar,
>>> 
>>> FloatLiteral:
>>> Float
>>> Float Suffix
>>> Integer ImaginarySuffix
>>> Integer FloatSuffix ImaginarySuffix
>>> Integer RealSuffix ImaginarySuffix
>> I don't think "Integer" is referring to "IntegerLiteral". In fact, I
>> think it is undefined.
>> 
> Umm.. Ok. I guess I'll just omit it from my grammar until it is
> defined...
> 
> At least for RealSuffix it appeared very much to be referring to
> IntegerLiteral
> 

As that is in lex.html I don't think it is part of the syntax but part of the lexical stuff. OTOH I seem to recall that there are some issues with FP literals vs slices ".." 

Reply to Ellery,

> BCS wrote:
> 
>> Reply to Ellery,
>> 
>>> From the grammar,
>>> 
>>> FloatLiteral:
>>> Float
>>> Float Suffix
>>> Integer ImaginarySuffix
>>> Integer FloatSuffix ImaginarySuffix
>>> Integer RealSuffix ImaginarySuffix
>> I don't think "Integer" is referring to "IntegerLiteral". In fact, I
>> think it is undefined.
>> 
> Umm.. Ok. I guess I'll just omit it from my grammar until it is
> defined...
> 
> At least for RealSuffix it appeared very much to be referring to
> IntegerLiteral
> 

As that is in lex.html I don't think it is part of the syntax but part of the lexical stuff. OTOH I seem to recall that there are some issues with FP literals vs slices ".."