On 24.12.2011 01:32, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 12/23/2011 11:34 PM, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
On Friday, December 23, 2011 17:19:26 bearophile wrote:
Derek Parnell:
I'm with Don on this one because a boolean and an integer are not the
same concept, and even though many programming languages implement
booleans using integers, it still doesn't make them the same thing.
D doesn't implement booleans with integers, D has a boolean type. But D
allows bools to implicitly cast to ints/longs.
I'd actually argue that that's a mistake. Implicitly converting an int
to a
bool is one thing - that's useful in conditional expressions - but
converting
from bool to int is something else entirely. I see no reason to expand
that
problem into BigInt. _int_ shouldn't have it, let alone BigInt.
- Jonathan M Davis
A: "Um, so why does bool implicitly convert to int but not to BigInt?"
B: "Because the language's design contains an error. It is a huge
_problem_. Therefore we decided to keep it inconsistent. If you
re-parenthesise your expression however, your code will compile."
A: "Awesome!!"
As I said when I closed that post, it is _impossible_ for BigInt to
always behave the same as int. One example:
byte c = x & 0x7F;
This compiles if x is an int. It doesn't compile if x is a BigInt.
BigInt's job is to behave like a Euclidean integer, not to be a drop-in
replacement for built-in integer types.
