220 18751 <002882ae-1b6b-40f7-adde-fce1fbcfc040@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: 3dw4rd@verizon.net Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: 0o for Octal? Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:05:51 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 145 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <002882ae-1b6b-40f7-adde-fce1fbcfc040@isocpp.org> References: <81dc7616-d144-4405-a64c-b69fb5aa0abb@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_968_1831611757.1435176351339" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1435176372 30466 80.91.229.3 (24 Jun 2015 20:06:12 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 20:06:12 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCS2FYFYXYEBBIE3VSWAKGQECNVPESA@isocpp.org Wed Jun 24 22:05:56 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-ie0-f200.google.com ([209.85.223.200]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Z7qvi-0007Dt-EW for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 22:05:54 +0200 Original-Received: by iebqu10 with SMTP id qu10sf86504293ieb.3 for ; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=shesvxEd2q0c9jkEptVJ9WrCeDmV5IA65j8dVA++LdQ=; b=PWni9l9moixTvQz9r5Tof93AFLcb4PBBWp5yHSszA0tRG8ev97Qd3qvIcpkIm69df8 XsjrdYkK+qxSONlXPtLLw3ieFOUF9h8nETRwG/oUPFMn+wQskv+pXl7RcK7ljzTEv4Si Ql4GR1XW9wV3j6Yl+Cf+oy6NlADppnhYaITI3uqO2kDdEh9liJzqZpToy6L8FHLKX5Tn w1vxDxAiB/js6mRZW2/SYCPvGnkRyPi3ouz+JnDlgpmZymfR3csB/b6fFvqqKxhmPjKt o3nmOoBZ37HUtZ5L3R7HdyGhnrJ4dclAzr0o+mxQOq0eMLHs9OE7NwAXQ9Nj5rQpvBUW hL+Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkkyEy723ZVI4i3gEfp0q2/q2xV86+NuSvXcBZCMVjkkI/x+AYlveqr0GiFhfY6UGqEoK45 X-Received: by 10.182.88.133 with SMTP id bg5mr55532860obb.33.1435176353343; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:05:53 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.140.108.202 with SMTP id j68ls998058qgf.27.gmail; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.99.44 with SMTP id p41mr23197qge.3.1435176352464; Wed, 24 Jun 2015 13:05:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: 3dw4rd@verizon.net Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:18751 Archived-At: ------=_Part_968_1831611757.1435176351339 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_969_1868203801.1435176351339" ------=_Part_969_1868203801.1435176351339 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Actually, this proposal would have 0o0 or 0O0 for 0 which looks like an emiticon of some sort. This wouldn't scream Octal! I thought about 0c or 0C prefixes but that's probably just too cute. I don't think the committee would touch either. I could be wrong though. They hashed out digit separators. On Wednesday, June 24, 2015 at 2:35:35 PM UTC-4, Tony V E wrote: > > Deprecating 0 just isn't going to happen, I think. > So the benefit of adding 0o seems low. And 0O is hard to read (although > it just looks like 00 and the meaning is the same). > > Is it worth committee time? I personally don't think so. > > On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Olaf van der Spek > wrote: > >> In the parsing numbers thread we have been discussing about prefixes for >> bases. John brought up a Python proposal proposing some updates to the >> rules for octal numbers. >> https://www.python.org/dev/peps/pep-3127/ >> >> If I read the proposal correctly the idea (for Python 3) was to add 0o as >> a prefix for octal numbers and to disallow the old prefix by disallowing >> leading zeros.. >> The arguments seem sound and I'm wondering, should we propose the same >> for C++? >> >> Allowing 0o for octal seems simple. >> Deprecating 0 is a bit harder.. >> >> -- >> >> --- >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups >> "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. >> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an >> email to std-proposal...@isocpp.org . >> To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org . >> Visit this group at >> http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. >> > > -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. ------=_Part_969_1868203801.1435176351339 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Actually, this proposal would have 0o0 or 0O0 for 0 which = looks like an emiticon of some sort.  This wouldn't scream Octal!
<= br>I thought about 0c or 0C prefixes but that's probably just too cute.
=
I don't think the committee would touch either.  I could be wrong = though.  They hashed out digit separators.

On Wednesday, June 2= 4, 2015 at 2:35:35 PM UTC-4, Tony V E wrote:
Deprecating 0 just isn't going to = happen, I think.
So the benefit of adding 0o seems low.  And = 0O is hard to read (although it just looks like 00 and the meaning is the s= ame).

Is it worth committee time? I personally don't think so.=

On Wed, Jun 24, 2015 at 2:08 = PM, Olaf van der Spek <olafv...@gmail.com> wrote:
In the parsing numbers thread= we have been discussing about prefixes for bases. John brought up a Python= proposal proposing some updates to the rules for octal numbers.

If I read the proposal correctly the idea (for = Python 3) was to add 0o as a prefix for octal numbers and to disallow the o= ld prefix by disallowing leading zeros..
The arguments seem sound= and I'm wondering, should we propose the same for C++?

Allowing 0o for octal seems simple.
Deprecating 0 is a bit = harder..

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposal.= ...@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-pr...@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/= std-proposals/.

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_969_1868203801.1435176351339-- ------=_Part_968_1831611757.1435176351339-- .