http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=1977
------- Comment #15 from [EMAIL PROTECTED] 2008-11-24 14:48 ------- (In reply to comment #14) > (In reply to comment #13) > > (In reply to comment #12) > > > (In reply to comment #10) > > > > c += 'A' - 'a'; > > > > > > > > Casting seems too strict a requirement in these types of situations. I > > > > can't > > > > imagine that anyone has a positive experience with these warnings, most > > > > are > > > > just going to grumble, then insert the cast without thinking about it. > > > > > > Notice that in the particular example you mention, the code does go > > > through > > > because it uses +=. > > > > Wow, that surprises me. > > > > c = c + c should be equivalent to c += c; > > > > So right there, either both should be invalid, or neither should. Both > > have an > > equal chance of overflow. > > It shouldn't be that surprising, particularly considering that Java and C# > obey > the same rules. The correct equivalence is that c = c + c is really c = > cast(typeof(c))(c + c). I meant c += c is equivalent to cast(typeof(c))(c + c). --
