Thoughts on unified integer literal improvements

[Joe Darcy]

Hello.

On the set of improved integer literal features, I think combining the 
underscores as separators and binary literals is straightforward given 
separately correct grammars for each change.

As an alternate to "y" and "s" suffices, I suggesting considering a "u" 
suffix to mean unsigned.  Literals with a trailing "u" would have type 
int; widening conversions of such literals would 0 extend and narrowing 
conversions would range check on the width of set bits.  For example,

byte b = 0xABu // equivalent to (0xAB & 0xFF)

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

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

-Joe