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 can perfectly understand that others may want to check their
code in a "strict" mode.
So actually I'm not against a warning for signed/unsigned
implicit conversions.
I'm just against putting it on by default, so that the current
behavior is kept, because I don't see where is the language
improvement in having to put these ugly manual conversion
everywhere just because the string/array length was made unsigned.
I always use signed integers for string/array indices because
unsigned indices become dangerous as soon as your algorithm
starts to decrement it...
And as I said, I compile my D code with the 64-bit compiler, and
2^63 characters/items is much more than needed for my personal
use cases.
So until the day I will have a computer which can store a string
of 16 million terabytes, at the moment I prefer to use long
values for indices, instead of ulong, because negative indices
can already occur right now with my current algorithms.
