Is there a reason for default-int?

[BCS]

Hello Ary,

> 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
>>>> something
>>>> else that makes sense?
>>> C++ abandoned default int. I think it would be best for D to do the
>>> same.
>>> 
>> 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?

int i;
char[] s;

int foo(int);
char[] foo(int,char[]);
int[] foo(char[],int);

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[]?