Re: implicit ubyte casting

Stewart Gordon wrote: #include int main() { unsigned char z = 5; int x = -z; // x now is 251 Needless to say, this comment is a mistake. Stewart.

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Moritz Warning wrote: ubyte z = 5; int x = -z; // x now is 251 int y = -1 * z; // y is now -5 Indeed, I've just looked at the spec, and it appears that the promotion of all smaller integer types to int/uint applies only to binary operations. Why? It even arguably breaks the "looks like C,

Re: implicit ubyte casting

On Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:25:01 +0200, Don wrote: > Brad Roberts wrote: >> On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Saaa wrote: >> >>> I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? >>> >>> ubyte ub = 5; >>> int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 >>> >>> What is the reasoning to do it this way? >> >> The inclu

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Brad Roberts wrote: On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Saaa wrote: I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way? The inclusion of the 'int' part obscures what I think the real problem is.. Does

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Jeremie Pelletier wrote: Don wrote: Saaa wrote: Jeremie Pelletier wrote Saaa wrote: I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way? Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on a signed

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Don wrote: Saaa wrote: Jeremie Pelletier wrote Saaa wrote: I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way? Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on a signed or unsigned type. When c

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Saaa wrote: Jeremie Pelletier wrote Saaa wrote: I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way? Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on a signed or unsigned type. When converting it

Re: implicit ubyte casting

On Thu, 1 Oct 2009, Saaa wrote: > I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? > > ubyte ub = 5; > int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 > > What is the reasoning to do it this way? The inclusion of the 'int' part obscures what I think the real problem is.. Does it make sense

Re: implicit ubyte casting

On Thu, Oct 1, 2009 at 2:00 PM, bearophile wrote: > I have discussed such topics several times in the main D newsgroup, and in > the end no good solution has being found/accepted so far. But eventually some > better solution must be found... Fucking A, bearophile. Bugzilla. How many fucking ti

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Saaa: >Does anybody ever use the =-z behaviour?< Sometimes C programmers use something like: unsigned int x = -1; The interaction of signed-unsigned integral numbers in D is very error-prone, so much that I suggest to use unsigned integrals in D only where strictly necessary (generally when you

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Moritz Warning wrote > > This is a troublesome behavior: > > ubyte z = 5; > int x = -z; // x now is 251 > int y = -1 * z; // y is now -5 Yes, troublesome is the correct word :) Does anybody ever use the =-z behaviour?

Re: implicit ubyte casting

On Thu, 01 Oct 2009 10:16:08 -0400, Jeremie Pelletier wrote: > Saaa wrote: >> I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? >> >> ubyte ub = 5; >> int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 >> >> What is the reasoning to do it this way? > > Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Jeremie Pelletier wrote > > Then why use an ubyte instead of a byte or an int? I wasn't me who wrote that part of the code :) > > You could also just do: > for(int i = cast(byte)nloop; i < 10; i++) I forgot the minus sign: for(int i = -cast(int)nloop;i< 10; i++) Still think it is unnecessary bug-

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Saaa wrote: Jeremie Pelletier wrote Saaa wrote: I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way? Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on a signed or unsigned type. When converting it

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Jeremie Pelletier wrote > Saaa wrote: >> I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? >> >> ubyte ub = 5; >> int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 >> >> What is the reasoning to do it this way? > > Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on a signed or unsigned > type. When conv

Re: implicit ubyte casting

Saaa wrote: I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way? Minus toggles the most significant bit, be it on a signed or unsigned type. When converting it to an int, the byte being signed o

implicit ubyte casting

I think is very bug-prone, isn't it obvious iub should be -5? ubyte ub = 5; int iub = -ub; // iub now is 251 What is the reasoning to do it this way?