Thoughts on unified integer literal improvements
Joseph D. Darcy
Joe.Darcy at Sun.COM
Thu May 28 00:54:02 PDT 2009
Paul Benedict wrote:
> Thanks Mark :-) Then I believe the 'u' suffix is more straightforward.
...and "u" is used in C to mean unsigned; although if I understand the C
rules correctly, unsigned literals in C can only be assigned to unsigned
With this proposal, Java would have unsigned int literals but only a
*signed* int type.
> I can mentally make the connection that 'u' means an 'unsigned'
> literal. I prefer that over any other letter suffix.
> byte b1 = 0xFFu; // you get -127
> On Thu, May 28, 2009 at 2:35 AM, Mark Thornton wrote:
>> Because 0xFF is equivalent to 255 which is outside the range of byte.
>> Compare with
>> byte b1 = 0xFFFFFFFF;
>> It is a consequence of the (unfortunate) choice of bytes as signed.
>> Paul Benedict wrote:
>>> byte b1 = 0xFF;
>>> byte b2 = 3;
>>> Can someone explain to me why this shouldn't straight compile?
More information about the coin-dev