Cyclic Dependencies

[Steven Schveighoffer]

"Jarrett Billingsley" wrote
> It can obviously be argued that since the operands of ?: are constant,
> the compiler _could_ figure out that they should be of type wchar[],
> but that would make the semantic analysis more complicated, and since
> appending 'w' to the strings is far easier, it probably won't change
> any time soon.

Looks like another job for Captain Polysemy!