Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-12 Thread digg
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 9:00:34 AM UTC-5, di...@veryhaha.com wrote: > > > > On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 5:11:10 AM UTC-5, Axel Wagner wrote: >> >> Hm, this thread has actually opened up a question I don't have a good >> answer to. >> >> On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:47 AM,

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-12 Thread Marvin Renich
* 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts [180112 05:11]: > Hm, this thread has actually opened up a question I don't have a good > answer to. > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:47 AM, wrote: > > an untyped interger literal/constant is representable float64

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-12 Thread digg
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 5:11:10 AM UTC-5, Axel Wagner wrote: > > Hm, this thread has actually opened up a question I don't have a good > answer to. > > On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:47 AM, wrote: > >> then can I say >> an untyped rune literal/constant is representable

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-12 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
Hm, this thread has actually opened up a question I don't have a good answer to. On Fri, Jan 12, 2018 at 9:47 AM, wrote: > then can I say > an untyped rune literal/constant is representable int type for sure. > Yes, rune is an alias for int32 and int is specified to have at

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-12 Thread digg
then can I say an untyped rune literal/constant is representable int type for sure. an untyped interger literal/constant is representable float64 type for sure. an untyped floating-point literal/constant is representable complex128 type for sure. On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 2:42:20 AM UTC-5,

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-12 Thread digg
On Friday, January 12, 2018 at 2:42:20 AM UTC-5, Axel Wagner wrote: > > What do you mean by "potential type"? There is no such concept. > > The spec is pretty clear, on the > subject, IMO. There is also this blog post >

Re: [go-nuts] Re: Is my understanding on numeric literals right?

2018-01-11 Thread 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts
What do you mean by "potential type"? There is no such concept. The spec is pretty clear, on the subject, IMO. There is also this blog post . The gist is: There are boolean, rune, integer, floating, complex and string