Integer promotion... what I'm missing? (It's monday...)

[Derek Parnell]

On Tue, 20 Jun 2006 04:06:37 +0200, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:

> Deewiant wrote:
>> Tony wrote:
>>> I would prefer that any type promotions (and any implicit operations for 
>>> that matter) should guarantee not to introduce any data corruption.  In this 
>>> case, promote both numbers to a third type which can hold all possible 
>>> values from both.
>>>
>> I think a warning for all such cases would suffice --- I thought one would be
>> emitted for the original code, but evidently not.
> 
> Instead of a warning, I would prefer an error, forcing for an explicit 
> cast if the comparison it's what you really want to to. But only for 
> rule number 4.
> 

Just to note that with DMD, a 'warning' is really an optional error. In
other words, if you have -w switch and it displays a 'warning', the
compiler still fails to create the object file because it treats such
warnings as if they were errors.

-- 
Derek
(skype: derek.j.parnell)
Melbourne, Australia
"Down with mediocrity!"
20/06/2006 11:04:06 AM