Detecting inadvertent use of integer division

[Bob Jones]

"Don" <nospam at nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:hg5nkk$1n37$1 at digitalmars.com...
> bearophile wrote:
>> Don:
>>>> In Pascal too (and OCaML, but the situation is different) they are 
>>>> separated. I think here having two operators is better,
>>> Why?
>>
>> You are intelligent and expert so you must know my answer, so I fear 
>> yours is a trick question :-)
>
> No, it's not a trick question. You've used Python extensively, I haven't.
>
>> Two operators allow to reduce the need for casts (and 
>> rounding/truncation), and are more explicit, allowing the code to express 
>> its meaning better to people that come after the original programmer.
>
> OK. I'm trying to get most of the benefits without needing an extra 
> operator.

Having made the switch from Delphi to C++ a few years ago I ran into this 
alot. I dislike that I have to litter my arithmetic expresions with casts in 
order to get the division operator to do what I want it to. And I suspect 
all of those who are used to having seperate intdiv & fltdiv operators will 
agree.

So using cast(int) to mean "actualy I did intend the integer division inside 
the following expression" instead of it's usual "convert this to" makes an 
ugly situation even more so imo.

The fact that adding a specific intdiv operator would not only avoid more 
casting, but remove the the need for casting in a lot of existing cases 
should count pretty well against the "no more operator/keywords" argument. 
Imo it should count enough to override it.

But i guess cheap&ugly is more likely to make it in than 
expensive&expresive&ellegant.