'int' is enough for 'length' to migrate code from x86 to x64

[H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d]

On Fri, Nov 21, 2014 at 10:59:13AM -0800, Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On 11/21/2014 6:03 AM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 13:28:37 -0800
> >Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On 11/20/2014 7:52 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> >>>What *could* be improved, is the prevention of obvious mistakes in
> >>>*mixing* signed and unsigned types. Right now, D allows code like
> >>>the following with no warning:
> >>>
> >>>	uint x;
> >>>	int y;
> >>>	auto z = x - y;
> >>>
> >>>BTW, this one is the same in essence as an actual bug that I fixed
> >>>in druntime earlier this year, so downplaying it as a mistake
> >>>people make 'cos they confound computer math with math math is
> >>>fallacious.
> >>
> >>What about:
> >>
> >>      uint x;
> >>      auto z = x - 1;
> >>
> >>?
> >>
> >here z must be `long`. and for `ulong` compiler must emit error.
> 
> 
> So, any time an integer literal appears in an unsigned expression, the
> type of the expression becomes signed?

And subtracting two ulongs gives a compile error?! Whoa, that is truly
crippled.


T

-- 
Food and laptops don't mix.