Oh my, you're not understanding the concept of a standard.
Originally Posted by AnonymousCoward
Let me explain to you Mr AC that a standard STANDARDIZE the way to do things.
Being able to specif things in a standard way allows automatic compatibility from everything that implements the standard with anything else that implements it.
Standardizing the way of making user-defined literals is not the same as having a standard way of having a particular kind of literal.
Try to think about this: 'Everything you didn't specify will fall/fail/won't work at some point'.
It's already being done with other programming languages. (Java 7 comes to mind)
It doesn't require a large addition of the standard and can make life easier for people making software.
Slow down a bit. User-defined literals are part of the standard, so they should work wherever the standard is supported. If you say "but X is bound to introduce compiler C which has a small bug there preventing that custom-literal from working as expected" then you're talking about a non-compliant compiler and you should ask X to fix it rather than complaining about the standard.
Originally Posted by plonoma
I expect the real reason binary literals weren't added, if they were even considered, was because "it's just another feature", and Mr Stroustrap's been trying to keep the language as managable as possible. That Java now has it is no argument; you could never design one language which has every feature popular in any other language. Admitted it's not a difficult feature to add, but it's still another feature without a major user-base.
Personally I think binary is a lot more useful than octal, but that's beside the point.
NOPE i'm not talking about that. I'm not talking about bugs but different softwares doing things on a different way because the standard did NOT specified that.
Originally Posted by Cyborg16
The thing is that two people, organizations would have made the 'same' custom-literal which is written differently.
And would not be universal and stuff written from one wouldn't work on stuff written from another one.
The software would be perfectly fine but adapting all software for all things from all parties would be an impossible task.
Your user-defined literals don't tell you what the literals stand for.
That's not a bug in software. That's unspecified because we are talking about custom literals.
Universally usable binary literals would be very welcome in many places.
1. Most likely boost will get an implementation and it will become pretty standard.
2. If not, at worst it'll be a search-and-replace job.