https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=96788
--- Comment #10 from newbie-02 <newbie-02 at gmx dot de> --- (In reply to Xi Ruoyao from comment #9) > (In reply to newbie-02 from comment #8) > No, in C there's NOT a negative integer constant, at all. So you cannot > account the sign for an integer constant. ... !!! what?!?! !!! we have a datatype, integer, covering negative values, but no constants for that? Just _assume_ there is a high qualified, high paid steering committee defining / leading / developing the standard for the language ... anybody thought about consistency or the like? Enhancement request. The datatypes "int", "long", "long long" and the like are not named "signed", but sit as complement to the respective "unsigned" types, and thus justified are expected as signed by humans, acc. that it's meaningful to have an option to define and read in appropriate constants. "We - computers, languages, ... - are dedicated to support humans by providing e.g. understandable, expectable, consistent math for them. Not! try to nag and trap them at every possible corner. I appreciate the positive aspects of having only positive constants for integers in the system, but I believe it limits the flexibility and functionality of the tool. Including the ability to use negative constants would greatly enhance its usability, accuracy and understandability in a wider range of mathematical scenarios. I respectfully urge the development team to consider implementing this feature in future updates." :-)
