Why does intpromote spew warnings for ~ operator?

[Alexey]

On Tuesday, 14 September 2021 at 06:03:24 UTC, bauss wrote:
> On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 22:27:11 UTC, Alexey wrote:
>> On Monday, 13 September 2021 at 21:03:41 UTC, Guillaume Piolat 
>> wrote:
>>> On Sunday, 12 September 2021 at 14:14:03 UTC, Steven 
>>> Schveighoffer wrote:
>>
>> It's also not exactly clear why:

> 1. It's fairly clear why. Because a lot of the D ecosystem 
> depends on C such as libraries etc.

The ability of D to parse C code, doesn't mean it necessarily 
should use same rules in it's own D code.

>a lot of C code is/will be
> ported to D

mythical possibility

> and it's impossible to do so if there are unclear/major 
> behavior differences.

how is it unclear? - because C coders doesn't want to learn D? - 
this is the reason D should be like C?

there's also many other languages, which can (to some distinct) 
understand C/C++ (like Go, Rust, Java, Python and so on). But 
they are not necessarily gain same promotion rules (and they 
shouldn't, because those are separate languages)

> D promotes itself with "betterC" which means it needs to behave 
> like C to be a better C.

to my understanding, betterC - is an option. if user selects this 
option, maybe then D should work like C. but many people also 
going to D because it isn't C/C++ - how about them, them who 
doesn't like C/C++?

> 2. It's not necessarily copy-pasting but when you port code you 
> don't go through it line-for-line and verify because that will 
> take a very long time.

In any case, such port will require also types transition and 
many more things. In any case such a porter will should recheck 
code

> There are even tools for D that allows porting C to D code

this just says what such tools could rewrite code to D's 
conformations

> and when using those tools you will not be able to verify the 
> code that easy.

why is this?

> Since a lot of the ecosystem depends on those tools then the 
> behavior should be consistent with C.

what you just said, is "D depends on C, because D should depend 
on C"

> 3. Yes, see the first point about the ecosystem heavily relying 
> on C.

----

all this doesn't answer why D should be like C. or is it like:
* C++ is C with classes
* D is C++ with GC
, yes?

so if C++ will gain GC - D will become unneeded?

also, as somebody apparently mentioned earlier, such a radical 
change in behavior, will probably require a major version number 
change. - will D become the second Python with version 2 and 3 
support for next 10 years and consequent BDFL expel?

I will conclude with following: I heard what D developers stated 
one day what D will accept C code; but I don't think this is 
necessary and I will not judge D developers for not achieving 
this. Not to say C already has it primary successors (Limbo and 
Go (which for some reason decided not to look like C)).