http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=9112
--- Comment #18 from Kenji Hara <[email protected]> 2012-12-11 05:01:27 PST --- (In reply to comment #16) > (In reply to comment #15) > > > AFAIK, it's not exactly the same thing, as int(10) would be only a > > > constructor, so would not downcast. > > > > I agree, but if you look at Kenji's proposal, he specifically says that > > there's > > a cast involved (which I'd missed when I read it the first time). So, > > Andrej's > > complaint is completely valid given Kenji's initial proposal. But if you > > fix it > > so that no cast is involved, then I think that it's fine. > > I'm just wondering if that's *actually* what's going on, or if Kenji just > accidentally miss-commented it that way. > > I don't know how to read compiler code, so I wouldn't know what he actually > did. It'd be nice if he did deliver a fail_compile checking this. You pointed out is correct. At first, I had considered that int(10) should be translated to cast(int)10. But, while implementing pull, I had discovered the incorrect cast would occur much easily. So now, the posted pull doesn't implement int(10) as a cast, and the syntax accepts only a value which implicitly convertible to int. -- Configure issuemail: http://d.puremagic.com/issues/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: -------
