In message <
[email protected]>
Ben Pfaff said:
It's not clear to me that such a problematic integer constant
*has* a type.
I was hoping no-one would say that. I'll come back with:
6.4.4p3: "Each constant has a type, determined by its form and value,
as detailed later."
But it says later that "the type of an integer constant is the first of the
corresponding list in which its value can be represented.".
You could say that this last statement leaves a constant that doesn't fit
into any type in the list typeless. But if such a constant were typeless,
you'd be contradicting 6.4.4p3, and it would render constraint 6.4.4p2
meaningless, as it could never be invoked. I think you've got to infer intent
here.
This still leaves the question - what IS the type of an overlarge constant? I
would assume that it'd be the last type on the corresponding list, but the
standard doesn't say so.