Is -1 > 7 ?

[Ary Borenszweig]

On 8/14/13 2:26 PM, Andre Artus wrote:
> On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 17:01:46 UTC, Yota wrote:
>> On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 17:35:18 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
>>> On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 15:28:10 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
>>>> michaelc37 wrote:
>>>>> WTF -> -1 is greater than 7 ????
>>>>
>>>> From the docs:
>>>>
>>>> It is an error to have one operand be signed and the other unsigned
>>>> for a
>>>> <, <=, > or >= expression.
>>>>
>>>> -manfred
>>>
>>> Interesting. I didn't know it was documented as being an outright
>>> error, I thought it was just "surprising"...
>>>
>>> I don't think Walter will ever accept to make it illegal though,
>>> breaks too much code. If this was a change he was OK with, I think we
>>> would have had it since day one, or at least, years ago.
>>
>> I remember hearing somewhere that D is about enforcing users to write
>> CORRECT code.  I would really be disappointed with the language if
>> this sort of gotcha weren't eliminated.
>>
>> If I look at this assert, I shouldn't be expecting it to pass.
>> static assert(-1 > cast(size_t)7);
>>
>> IMHO, as long as this sort of comparison causes a compile-time error,
>> as the docs say they should, this kind of breaking change is the of
>> very good sort.  The sort that reveals bugs in code. (Like when they
>> changed the NULL macro to mean 'nullptr' instead of 0 in C++.) I
>> couldn't imagine a programmer exploiting this intentionally, as it
>> serves no purpose.
>
> I agree, breaking changes that expose bugs in your code are the good
> kind. The time spent fixing compile time errors is more than compensated
> for by the time saved not having to hunt down those bugs.
>
> Having worked with languages where reference types are non-nullable by
> default I wish more languages did the same.

Which are those languages? I'm interested.