On 20/08/16 00:51, Walter Bright wrote:
On 8/18/2016 7:59 PM, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
Alas, C insisted on making everything int all the time and D followed
that :(
Actually, Adam's suggestion on how things should work is precisely how C
works (except it trails off at int).
a = b + c;
if b and c are both a byte, and a is a byte, the result is unpromoted.
If a is a short, the result is promoted. I know the mechanism is
completely different than what Adam was suggesting, but the end result
is precisely the same.
> One would have to be *really* sure of their ground in coming up with
> allegedly better rules.
>
Would "no narrowing implicit casts" be considered such a better rule? :-)
Again, I'm not saying it's a bad rule, just that does have consequences.
What I'm saying is that we are, already, changing things.
Shachar
