From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Richard Earnshaw <rearnsha@arm.com>
To: tim@hollebeek.com
Cc: Neil Booth <neil@daikokuya.demon.co.uk>, Zack Weinberg <zack@codesourcery.com>, Frank Klemm <pfk@fuchs.offl.uni-jena.de>, gcc@gcc.gnu.org, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com
Subject: Re: Proposal 
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 02:41:00 -0000
Message-id: <200109190939.KAA27043@cam-mail2.cambridge.arm.com>
References: <20010919052719.A31713@cj44686-b.reston1.va.home.com>
X-SW-Source: 2001-09/msg00753.html

> 
> > Anything more complex is probably not worth it.
> 
> Long decimals benefit just as much as large integers
> do. "3.141_592_653_529" should be legal too.

As should (IMO) 0xffff_0000_ffff_ffffUL

Which means it has to be a little more general than "decimal digit"

R.