On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 11:08:05 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
On Saturday, 6 August 2022 at 08:29:19 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/5/2022 9:43 AM, Max Samukha wrote:
Both "123." and "123.E123" is valid C. For some reason, D
only copied the former.
It's to support UFCS (Universal Function Call Syntax).
UFCS could still be supported with the exception of functions
named like exponents. (I am not advocating for it.)
aaaand, the truth comes out. It is not representable, it is
truncated to 0. Technically, ImportC should accept it. But if
it does, doesn't it mislead users into thinking it is non-zero?
We've got the right choice here, but it's definitely a
judgement call.
No objections to this.
May be we need some warnings about ambiguity, but incompability
with C in base things, as literals is not an option.
Same code compiled different with ImportC but not D, ough.
