is this considered inconsistency?

mw mingwu at gmail.com
Sun Mar 21 22:56:43 UTC 2021


On Sunday, 21 March 2021 at 21:22:16 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 March 2021 at 17:01:27 UTC, mw wrote:
>>> There's also a point to be made that the implicit conversion 
>>> from signed to unsigned integers should not be allowed, 
>>> that's a separate discussion.
>>
>> Indeed, this shouldn't be allowed, bite by this a number of 
>> times. Is there a DIP on this already?
>
> There have been proposals to change the integer promotion rules 
> in the past, but they've been rejected because Walter wants to 
> keep them compatible with C, to make porting C code to D easier.

"compatible with C" as a goal of D?

Then why we need D? C++ has been there already 😎


Instead of let a few people decide, how about also let the users 
decide?

I have read -dipxxx switches are kind of previews (not formally 
in to the language).

How about add a -dip-no-explicit-conversion preview, but ask the 
users permission to send their actuall complier build flags (of 
their daily work) back to dlang.org, and let that statistics be 
part of the decision factor?

E.g, if 99.999% of the users always have that flag turned on, why 
not have that feature into the language?






More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list