Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Michael Schnell
On 12/16/2013 03:58 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote: unsigned:= card32(abs(signed)); This suggests that the result of abs is signed and need an explicit conversion to unsigned. I'm not sure that this is beneficial. OTHO what is abs anyway ? Is it some kind of builtin overloaded function that

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Michael Schnell
On 12/16/2013 04:44 PM, Ivanko B wrote: Then typecasts ABS should be inline-d. Typecast is not only inlined but even builtin (in C source code it not even looks like a function; this is PASCAL specific stuff.) abs() is a special beast, anyway... -Michael

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Michael Schnell
On 12/17/2013 09:30 AM, Michael Schnell wrote: OTHO what is abs anyway ? Is it some kind of builtin overloaded function that works differently for different argument types ? BTW.: Funny stuff: Is the argument of abs() would be fixed to signed, and we would have automatic type conversion

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Martin Schreiber
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 09:30:52 Michael Schnell wrote: On 12/16/2013 03:58 PM, Martin Schreiber wrote: unsigned:= card32(abs(signed)); This suggests that the result of abs is signed and need an explicit conversion to unsigned. Correct. There is no abs() for unsigned types. I'm not

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Ivanko B
Correct. There is no abs() for unsigned types == Do You want to disable these (100% compatible) types as arguments ? Looks a bit revolutionary :) -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Martin Schreiber
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 18:38:39 Ivanko B wrote: Correct. There is no abs() for unsigned types == Do You want to disable these (100% compatible) types as arguments ? Looks a bit revolutionary :) One can always use explicit type conversions. MSElang principle is to make

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Ivanko B
This may be considered as a joke by non-devoted people :) -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance affects their

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Martin Schreiber
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 19:14:24 Ivanko B wrote: This may be considered as a joke by non-devoted people :) Why? What about Delphi cardinalvar:= $; integervar:= abs(cardinalvar); ? BTW, Free Pascal has no unsigned abs(). http://www.freepascal.org/docs-html/rtl/system/abs.html

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Sieghard
Hallo Michael, Du schriebst am Tue, 17 Dec 2013 09:33:34 +0100: Typecast is not only inlined but even builtin (in C source code it not even looks like a function; this is PASCAL specific stuff.) Sorry for stepping in, I promise I won't any more... BUT: Does anybody _really_ think that type

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Ivanko B
unsigned = signed = doing_smth = unsigned instead of doing_smth(unsigned) -- Rapidly troubleshoot problems before they affect your business. Most IT organizations don't have a clear picture of how application performance

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Martin Schreiber
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 19:31:21 Ivanko B wrote: unsigned = signed = doing_smth = unsigned instead of doing_smth(unsigned) There is no abs() for unsigned - one can not do doing_smth(unsigned) with abs(). --

Re: [MSEide-MSEgui-talk] MSElang, implicit type conversions

2013-12-17 Thread Martin Schreiber
On Tuesday 17 December 2013 20:24:27 Sieghard wrote: BUT: Does anybody _really_ think that type casting _does_ something? A type cast, CPU wise, is a no-op, quite simply. Correct, if the sizes of the types are the same a type conversion says to the compiler I know what I do. For the