• Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> Nov 23 2005

Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:

 Oh, that minor concern was in regard to consistency here also. I have
 no quibble with the character type being implied by content
 (consistent with numeric literals):
 
 1) The type for literal chars is implied by their content ('?',
 '\u0001', '\U00000001')
 
 2) The type of a numeric literal is implied by the content (0xFF, 
 0xFFFFFFFF, 1.234)
 
 3) The type for literal strings is not influenced at all by the
 content.
 
 Further; both #2 & #3 have suffixes to cement the type, but #1 does
 not (as far as I'm aware). These two inconsistencies are small, but
 they may influence concerns elsewhere ...


#1 is problematic. What if you have '\UFBDD' or something that does not 
fit in a byte. Or even 'ä'?

At the very least, the compiler should MAKE THIS AN ERROR.

In the old days, when we had 8-bit char sets, one could do that. But not 
now, when a character can potentially need more than 8 bits.