I was rereading the Integer Literals section and trying out some code
when I came across a couple of error messages on integer overflows.

I have reproduced the code below for reference.

void main()
{
    // The maximum long value is ...807
    // The following line produces an error message:
    // Error: signed integer overflow
    auto a = 9_223_372_036_854_775_808;

    // The maximum ulong value is ...615
    // The following line produces an error message:
    // Error: integer overflow
    auto g = 18_446_744_073_709_551_616U;
}

I just wanted to point out that the second error message might be
consistent if it says 'Error: unsigned integer overflow' in
comparison to the first error message.

Also, I noticed under the Integer Literal section of the D reference
document (http://dlang.org/spec/lex.html) that the range of uint

  0U .. 4_294_967_296U

in the table Decimal Literal Types has a typo. Shouldn't the range
end with 4_294_967_295U?

Here's a snippet:

import std.stdio;
void main()
{
    writeln(typeof(4_294_967_295U).stringof);
    writeln(typeof(4_294_967_296U).stringof);
}

On Monday, 4 January 2016 at 14:54:29 UTC, ric maicle wrote:
>   0U .. 4_294_967_296U
>
> in the table Decimal Literal Types has a typo. Shouldn't the range
> end with 4_294_967_295U?

The x .. y syntax excludes y. So 0..3 covers 0, 1, 2. It excludes 3.

On Monday, 04 January, 2016 10:58 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 4 January 2016 at 14:54:29 UTC, ric maicle wrote:
>>   0U .. 4_294_967_296U
>>
>> in the table Decimal Literal Types has a typo. Shouldn't the range
>> end with 4_294_967_295U?
>
> The x .. y syntax excludes y. So 0..3 covers 0, 1, 2. It excludes 3.

I copied part of the table here:

            0   .. 2_147_483_647
2_147_483_648   .. 9_223_372_036_854_775_807
            0L  .. 9_223_372_036_854_775_807L
            0U  .. 4_294_967_296U
4_294_967_296U  .. 18_446_744_073_709_551_615U
            0UL .. 18_446_744_073_709_551_615UL

If the range is x to y-1 shouldn't the rest of the other ending ranges
also be one greater than the maximum value of their types?

On 1/4/16 10:33 AM, ric maicle wrote:
> On Monday, 04 January, 2016 10:58 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> On Monday, 4 January 2016 at 14:54:29 UTC, ric maicle wrote:
>>>   0U .. 4_294_967_296U
>>>
>>> in the table Decimal Literal Types has a typo. Shouldn't the range
>>> end with 4_294_967_295U?
>>
>> The x .. y syntax excludes y. So 0..3 covers 0, 1, 2. It excludes 3.
>
> I copied part of the table here:
>
>              0   .. 2_147_483_647
> 2_147_483_648   .. 9_223_372_036_854_775_807
>              0L  .. 9_223_372_036_854_775_807L
>              0U  .. 4_294_967_296U
> 4_294_967_296U  .. 18_446_744_073_709_551_615U
>              0UL .. 18_446_744_073_709_551_615UL
>
> If the range is x to y-1 shouldn't the rest of the other ending ranges
> also be one greater than the maximum value of their types?

Yes, that is a typo.

https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/pull/1181

Thanks

-Steve