Thoughts on unified integer literal improvements

[Weijun Wang]

> long ell = 0xFFFFFFFFu; // A positive long value

Any particular requirement here? Why not simply

   long ell = 0xFFFFFFFFl;

> 
> I think this approach has some advantages over the "y" suffix; in 
> particular I think it gives more desirable behavior in cases like this:
> 
> byte b = 0xFFy // a negative byte value
> byte b = 0xFFu // also a negative byte value
> 
> short s = 0xFFy // a negative short value, -128;
>                  // byte value is signed extended
> short s = 0xFFu // a positive short value, +127
> 
> int   i = 0xFFy // -128
> int   i = 0xFFu // 127

Does this mean the actual value of 0xFFu is determined by looking at the
LHS of the assignment? This is terrible.

I'd rather use something like 0bXX which is itself always a byte literal.

Max

> 
> -Joe
>