Compiler manual is not that clear about int literal

[StefanSalewski]

As forum user lscrd reported, this text is not fully correct about int literals:

There exists a literal for each numerical type that is defined. The suffix starting with an apostrophe (''') is called a type suffix. Literals without a type suffix are of the type int, unless the literal contains a dot or E|e in which case it is of type float.

At a different position this correct explanation exists:

An integer literal that has no type suffix is of this type if it is in the range low(int32)..high(int32) otherwise the literal's type is int64.

[twetzel59]

@StefanSalewski I have looked at the forum, and I am interested in improving the manual. Do you mind clarifying what is wrong with the first statement?

As I think I understand, it could read (as an example):
... of the integer type of the minimum width to represent the value, unless the literal contains a dot or E|e in which case it is of type float.

[StefanSalewski]

twetzel, sorry english is not my native language, so I have some problems to give a good suggestion.

Your suggestions is wrong, because integer literals are of type int or int64, but never something like int16.

Maybe we could write: "Literals without a type suffix are of AN INTEGER type, unless the literal contains a dot or E|e in which case it is of type float." "This INTEGER type is type int if the literal is in the range low(int32)..high(int32) otherwise the literal's type is int64."

[twetzel59]

Off the top of my head, that sounds correct :)

[twetzel59]

I'll consider making a pull request once I write the changes, possibly tomorrow or sometime in the next few days :)

[twetzel59]

I'm going to work on this now.