Date: Tue, 19 May 2026 10:18:33 +0000
Hi,
On the C side, this reflects a limitation in the language we can use to talk about discouraged use of a feature.
`0o` was adopted explicitly with the intent that `0` would never be removed, because retaining the feature as-is is safer than removing it and potentially opening an extension space for a compiler to silently and retroactively change the meaning of old code.
C's "obsolescent" list is ambiguous in this respect and if C does eventually get wording that better refines the subtle distinctions between "obsolescent", "deprecated", "scheduled for removal", "discouraged" etc., the exact category of the feature will probably change to one that better reflects that intent. Right now the "obsolescent" list is the only list available.
Thanks,
Alex
[Perforce Software]
Alex Celeste (she/her/elle) | Elder Witch of the C Compiler, Perforce QAC
Perforce Software<https://www.perforce.com> P +1 612.517.2100
Visit Us On: LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/perforce> | YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/perforcesoftware>
________________________________
From: Liaison <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Nevin Liber via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Sent: 07 May 2026 20:20
To: liaison_at_[hidden] <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-wg14/wg21-liaison] Question re: P0085R3: Oo... adding a coherent character sequence to begin octal-literals
On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 9:14 AM Hubert Tong via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]<mailto:liaison_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
Hi all,
With respect to the deprecation of multi-digit octal literals using the plain 0 suffix, there is a culture (in WG 21) of expecting that deprecation leads to eventual removal. Was that clear in the discussion in April (https://github.com/sg22-c-cpp-standard-compatibility/sg-compatibility/blob/main/meetings/2026-04-24.md)?
I know I brought it up, but it may have only been in the Zoom chat.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]<mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>> +1-847-691-1404
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
On the C side, this reflects a limitation in the language we can use to talk about discouraged use of a feature.
`0o` was adopted explicitly with the intent that `0` would never be removed, because retaining the feature as-is is safer than removing it and potentially opening an extension space for a compiler to silently and retroactively change the meaning of old code.
C's "obsolescent" list is ambiguous in this respect and if C does eventually get wording that better refines the subtle distinctions between "obsolescent", "deprecated", "scheduled for removal", "discouraged" etc., the exact category of the feature will probably change to one that better reflects that intent. Right now the "obsolescent" list is the only list available.
Thanks,
Alex
[Perforce Software]
Alex Celeste (she/her/elle) | Elder Witch of the C Compiler, Perforce QAC
Perforce Software<https://www.perforce.com> P +1 612.517.2100
Visit Us On: LinkedIn<https://www.linkedin.com/company/perforce> | YouTube<https://www.youtube.com/user/perforcesoftware>
________________________________
From: Liaison <liaison-bounces_at_[hidden]> on behalf of Nevin Liber via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Sent: 07 May 2026 20:20
To: liaison_at_[hidden] <liaison_at_[hidden]>
Cc: Nevin Liber <nevin_at_[hidden]>
Subject: Re: [isocpp-wg14/wg21-liaison] Question re: P0085R3: Oo... adding a coherent character sequence to begin octal-literals
On Thu, May 7, 2026 at 9:14 AM Hubert Tong via Liaison <liaison_at_[hidden]<mailto:liaison_at_[hidden]>> wrote:
Hi all,
With respect to the deprecation of multi-digit octal literals using the plain 0 suffix, there is a culture (in WG 21) of expecting that deprecation leads to eventual removal. Was that clear in the discussion in April (https://github.com/sg22-c-cpp-standard-compatibility/sg-compatibility/blob/main/meetings/2026-04-24.md)?
I know I brought it up, but it may have only been in the Zoom chat.
--
Nevin ":-)" Liber <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]<mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>> +1-847-691-1404
CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe.
This e-mail may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please delete the e-mail and any attachments and notify us immediately.
Received on 2026-05-19 10:18:39
