> Oh, that minor concern was in regard to consistency here also. I have
> no quibble with the character type being implied by content
> (consistent with numeric literals):
> 
> 1) The type for literal chars is implied by their content ('?',
> '\u0001', '\U00000001')
> 
> 2) The type of a numeric literal is implied by the content (0xFF, 0xFFFFFFFF, 1.234)
> 
> 3) The type for literal strings is not influenced at all by the
> content.
> 
> Further; both #2 & #3 have suffixes to cement the type, but #1 does
> not (as far as I'm aware). These two inconsistencies are small, but
> they may influence concerns elsewhere ...

#1 is problematic. What if you have '\UFBDD' or something that does not fit in a byte. Or even 'ä'?

At the very least, the compiler should MAKE THIS AN ERROR.

In the old days, when we had 8-bit char sets, one could do that. But not now, when a character can potentially need more than 8 bits.