[OASIS Issue Tracker] Updated: (ODATA-341) Can we get rid of the optional trailing 'L'/'l' for int64 numbers

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

     [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ODATA-341?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:all-tabpanel ]

Hubert Heijkers updated ODATA-341:
----------------------------------

        Summary: Can we get rid of the optional trailing 'L'/'l' for int64 numbers  (was: Can we get rid of the trailing 'L' for int64 numbers)
       Proposal: Remove the optional trailing 'L'/'l' character for int64 numbers.  (was: Remove the trailing 'L' character for int64 numbers.)
    Description: According to the ABNF an optional 'L'/'l' character MAY be included. I was asked why this was and failed to give an answer. Dear I ask why we allow this whereas we don't make any distinction that way for the other integer types?We already allow for upscaling to a bigger type, why couldn't any integer number be just specified using its digits full well knowing that if more then 15 digits are required it has to be an int64 number ?  (was: According to the ABNF we need to append the capital 'L' character to an int64 integer whereas all the other integer types simply allow for more digits to be returned. Dear I ask why? We already allow for upscaling to a bigger type, why couldn't any integer number be just specified using its digits full well knowing that if more then 15 digits are required (and even with certain 15 digit numbers) an int64 number is required?)
       Priority: Minor  (was: Major)

Updated the issue after, based on previous comments, realizing the 'L'/'l' is optional.

> Can we get rid of the optional trailing 'L'/'l' for int64 numbers
> -----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ODATA-341
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ODATA-341
>             Project: OASIS Open Data Protocol (OData) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: OData ABNF Construction Rules
>         Environment: [Proposed]
>            Reporter: Hubert Heijkers
>            Priority: Minor
>
> According to the ABNF an optional 'L'/'l' character MAY be included. I was asked why this was and failed to give an answer. Dear I ask why we allow this whereas we don't make any distinction that way for the other integer types?We already allow for upscaling to a bigger type, why couldn't any integer number be just specified using its digits full well knowing that if more then 15 digits are required it has to be an int64 number ?

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira