VRP and signed <-> unsigned conversion
no at no.no
Wed Dec 15 15:32:29 UTC 2021
On Wednesday, 15 December 2021 at 14:39:09 UTC, Steven
> 1. Does it make sense for this to be valid? Should we reexamine
> unsigned <-> signed implicit casting?
> 2. If the above rewrite is possible, shouldn't VRP just allow
> this conversion? i.e. a type that has an unsigned/signed
> counterpart should be assignable if the signed/unsigned can
> accept the range.
if a conversion cannot be proven to not truncate it should
require a cast.
More information about the Digitalmars-d