• Georg Wrede (5/21) Nov 23 2005 #1 is problematic. What if you have '\UFBDD' or something that does not

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.
 

 not (as far as I'm aware). These two inconsistencies are small, but
 they may influence concerns elsewhere ...


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.