On Thursday, 29 June 2017 at 19:12:24 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
On Thursday, 29 June 2017 at 18:03:39 UTC, Ecstatic Coder wrote:
I often do code like "x < array.length" where x needs to be a
long to be able to handle negative values.
I want my code to compile without warning, and therefore I'm
against requiring "x < array.length.to!long()" to remove that
warning.
`x < array.length` and `x < array.length.to!long` have
different results when x is negative. That's why a
warning/error is in order.
I often have array indices that go up and down (x++/x--)
depending on the logic.
I find convenient to be able to test them (x >= 0, x < a.length)
without having to manage the fact that the array stores its
length as an unsigned integer to double its potential size, since
anyway I never use arrays with 2^63 items.
