PR# 19879 {INTEGER_32}.min_value = - {INTEGER_32}.min_value returns True

{INTEGER_32}.min_value = - {INTEGER_32}.min_value   returns True

This probably applies to INTEGER_8, 16 and 64 too. 

Although there are good reasons for this behaviour, I would expect the contracts for INTEGER_xx to either:
- document this rather unexpected result 
- prevent any negation of {INTEGER_xx}.min_value, if necessary as a post-condition

In general I believe the contracts should fully document the differences in behaviour of integers and naturals that are represented as fixed width binary values as opposed to abstract mathematical integers and naturals

Print({INTEGER_32}.min_value = - {INTEGER_32}.min_value)