Is there a reason for default-int?
none at anon.com
Tue Dec 29 19:38:45 PST 2009
> Don wrote:
>> Phil Deets wrote:
>>> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 16:18:46 -0500, Simen kjaeraas
>>> <simen.kjaras at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Apart from C legacy, is there a reason to assume anything we don't
>>>> know what
>>>> is, is an int? Shouldn't the compiler instead say 'unknown type' or
>>>> else that makes sense?
>>> C++ abandoned default int. I think it would be best for D to do the
>> D never had default int. When there's an error, the compiler just has
>> to choose *some* type, so that it doesn't crash <g>.
> It could be an Error type (that's not an alias for int type) that
> don't start to spit errors everywhere and instead just blocks all
> further errors on that type.
that poses an interesting question: what "type" does this this give?
auto whatType = foo(i ~ s, s);
i~s gives the error type but DMD could tell that as long as the other args
are correct, the only foo that works returns a char so does the variable
get the error type or char?
More information about the Digitalmars-d-learn