[cfp-interest 3807] Integer Literal - Low priority

[Damian McGuckin]

There is no such thing as a negative integer literal, although there is a 
negated integer literal. I joined working on a task recently where this 
fact had escaped those working on things. The specification of integer 
literals occurs in 6.4.5.2 where it says that "An integer literal begins 
with a digit, ....".

While the fact that it does not include a sign is not spelt out explicitly 
in the standard, I do note that the matching scenario for floating-point 
literals is spelt out explicitly as an explanatory NOTE in 6.4.5.3#13 
(under Remommended Practice) which says that "Floating literals do not 
include a sign and are arithmetically negated by the unary - operator.

I have note that others in various discussion groups like Stack Overflow 
lament not having such a clause in the standard for integral types to 
prompt peoples brains.

One could argue that a similar NOTE to what is said for floating-point 
literals would aid clarity for the integral literals in 6.4.5.2.

Just a thought- Damian