On Saturday, 23 June 2018 at 08:03:40 UTC, Jacob Carlborg wrote:
I read that as only the 0 and 1 literals would be affected by this proposal, i.e. the integer literals. But the examples are mentioning character literals as well. But if the character literals are evaluated to 0 or 1, perhaps everything is covered. But at least to me it's a bit unclear.
The DIP attempts to disambiguate that by using conventions. When referring to code it always uses backticks. When referring to English interpretation of the words, it does not.
The DIP states "integer and character literals that evaluate to 0 and 1". Note that it doesn't say "`int` literals" and "`char` literals", nor does it say "`0`" or "`1`". Therefore, the DIP is using the English interpretation of the words "integer", "character", "0", and "1". "integer" means `int`, `uint`, `long`, etc, "character" means `char`, `dchar`, `wchar`, etc, "0" means `0`, `0L`, `'\0'`, etc. and "1" means `1`, `1L`, `'\1'`, etc.
I hope that helps. Mike
