www.digitalmars.com         C & C++   DMDScript  

digitalmars.D.learn - The other topic: character literal types

 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
 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 ''? 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