sqrt(2) must go

[Robert Jacques]

On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:52:14 -0400, Marco Leise <Marco.Leise at gmx.de> wrote:
> Am 20.10.2011, 02:46 Uhr, schrieb dsimcha <dsimcha at yahoo.com>:
>
>> On 10/19/2011 6:25 PM, Alvaro wrote:
>>> El 19/10/2011 20:12, dsimcha escribió:
>>>> == Quote from Don (nospam at nospam.com)'s article
>>>>> The hack must go.
>>>>
>>>> No. Something as simple as sqrt(2) must work at all costs, period. A
>>>> language
>>>> that adds a bunch of silly complications to something this simple is
>>>> fundamentally
>>>> broken. I don't remember your post on implicit preferred conversions,
>>>> but IMHO
>>>> implicit conversions of integer to double is a no-brainer. Requiring
>>>> something
>>>> this simple to be explicit is Java/Pascal-like overkill on
>>>> explicitness.
>>>
>>> Completely agree.
>>>
>>> I call that uncluttered programming. No excessive explicitness should be
>>> necessary when what you mean is obvious (under some simple conventions).
>>> Leads to clearer code.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, and for the most part uncluttered programming is one of D's biggest
>> strengths.  Let's not ruin it by complicating sqrt(2).
>
> What is the compiler to do with sqrt(5_000_000_000) ? It doesn't fit into
> an int, but it fits into a double.

Simple, is a 5_000_000_000 long, and longs convert to reals. Also, 5_000_000_000 does not fit, exactly inside a double.