Thoughts on unified integer literal improvements

[Bruce Chapman]

Reinier Zwitserloot wrote:
> I don't think Artur's issues are particularly tough nuts to crack (in  
> that they have an easy and obvious right answer - see end of this  
> post), but I do have some rather serious reservations about this byte  
> array literal syntax:
>   

Don't sweat it, a new byte array literal syntax is not being considered 
under project coin.

 >  Seriously - where does it end?

before it starts.

Bruce