digitalmars.D.learn - The other topic: character literal types
- Georg Wrede (5/21) Nov 23 2005 #1 is problematic. What if you have '\UFBDD' or something that does not
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.
Nov 23 2005