Thanks for the answers As to the answer to
> the int refers to specific type rather than a type class > > Yes I do not believe that it is quite as straight-forward in Nim. I have given some examples in [https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/issues/12552#issue-514013349](https://github.com/nim-lang/Nim/issues/12552#issue-514013349) As to the answer to > int64 is not implicitely convertible to int > > Yes, for a reason: int is designed to be platform-dependent, int64 is not. > The compiler treating them as equivalent would be a bad idea. ... Nim > generally doesn't do many automatic type conversions out of the box, that's > intentional. I do understand the point, and I certainly would not want the compiler to treat them as equivalent. However, I do expect the compiler to convert int64's to int's on 64bit platforms, as this is safe - it does not involve any narrowing. If the compiler complains on a 32bit platform - so be it. At least the program fails at compile time. Anyway - I may never try to run the program on a 32bit platform. This seems better than have users blindly (or out of convenience) use the int type for very large integers and find the errors of their ways at runtime on 32 bit systems.
