On 11/21/2014 11:36 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, 21 Nov 2014 10:59:13 -0800
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/21/2014 6:03 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:28:37 -0800
Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <[email protected]> wrote:
On 11/20/2014 7:52 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
What *could* be improved, is the prevention of obvious mistakes in
*mixing* signed and unsigned types. Right now, D allows code like the
following with no warning:
uint x;
int y;
auto z = x - y;
BTW, this one is the same in essence as an actual bug that I fixed in
druntime earlier this year, so downplaying it as a mistake people make
'cos they confound computer math with math math is fallacious.
What about:
uint x;
auto z = x - 1;
?
here z must be `long`. and for `ulong` compiler must emit error.
So, any time an integer literal appears in an unsigned expression, the type of
the expression becomes signed?
nope. only for `auto` expressions.
So 'auto' has different type rules for expressions than anywhere else in D?
Consider:
void foo(T)(T a) { ... }
if (x - 1) foo(x - 1);
if (auto a = x - 1) foo(a);
and now foo() is instantiated with a different type?
I'm afraid I can't sell that to anyone :-(
