Implicit encoding conversion on string ~= int ?
Marco Leise
Marco.Leise at gmx.de
Sun Jun 23 23:21:17 PDT 2013
Am Mon, 24 Jun 2013 08:03:27 +0200
schrieb "monarch_dodra" <monarchdodra at gmail.com>:
> Well, chars are integral values... but are integral values char?
>
> I mean, I only see the promotion making sense one way: Converting
> a char to an uint can make sense for range analysis, but what
> about the other way around?
>
> Same with bool: I can see bool to int making sense, but int to
> bool not so much, which is why a cast is required (except in an
> if).
>
> In C, int to char was important, since char is the "byte" type.
> But D has byte, so I don't see why we'd allow int to byte...
+1. This is probably the best thinking. It would allow:
value = !value
and its ilk, but prevent
foo(1)
from going to a bool overload. But should that work?:
char D = 'A' + 3;
char E = 4 + 'A';
--
Marco
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list