On 12-12-20 05:59 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote: > > > Lindsey Kuper wrote: >> Our thinking at the time we implemented suffix inference was that if >> you went so far as to write the optional type annotation, then you >> should get the type you asked for, no questions asked, overflows and >> all. After all, sometimes people do want intentional overflow. But >> if it's causing nasty surprises, then, yeah, it should be revisited. > > > I think the best thing would be a simple lint check that visits each > literal and checks whether it can fit into the type assigned to it. It > will catch many simple cases like this one.
It is certainly the simplest thing for this case, but I'd also like not to paper it over, but to address the bug its general form. The question of exactly what constant-folding to do in the front/middle ends, and what sorts of conditions during that count as errors, is worth nailing down; it will resurface (already has, I've seen several "surprise" constant / non-constant behaviors, and heard others stubbing toes on same). It's already partly-implemented, and I think there's a plan coming into focus, just needs more care / thought. -Graydon _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
