Title
Incorrect description for interpreting integer literals
Status
review
Section
5.13.2 [lex.icon]
Submitter
Masaki Moriguchi

Created on 2025-11-08.00:00:00 last changed yesterday

Messages

Date: 2026-11-14.17:14:36

Proposed resolution (reviewed by CWG 2026-10-27, with low quorum):

Change in 5.13.2 [lex.icon] paragraph 1 as follows:

In an integer-literal,
  • the sequence of binary-digits, octal-digits, digits, or hexadecimal-digits or
  • the sequence of digits in an octal-literal or decimal-literal
is interpreted as a base N integer as shown in Table 7; the lexically first digit of the sequence of digits is the most significant.
Date: 2025-11-08.00:00:00

(From submission #794.)

The octal integer literal 0 is not covered by the rule in 5.13.2 [lex.icon] paragraph 1.

History
Date User Action Args
2026-11-14 17:14:36adminsetstatus: open -> review
2025-11-17 20:37:45adminsetmessages: + msg8383
2025-11-08 00:00:00admincreate