unsigned policy

[kris]

Sean Kelly wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
> 
>>
>> Current D botches quite a few of the arithmetic conversions. Basically 
>> all conversions that may lose value, meaning, or precision should not 
>> be allowed implicitly.
> 
> 
> Exactly.
> 
>  > Walter is willing to fix D in accordance to that
> 
>> rule, which would yield an implicit conversion graph as shown in:
>>
>> http://erdani.org/d-implicit-conversions.pdf
>>
>> Notice that there is no arrow e.g. between int and uint (loss of 
>> meaning), or between int and float (loss of precision). But there is 
>> an arrow from int and uint to double, because double is able to 
>> represent them faithfully.
>>
>> If we are nice, we may convince Walter to implement that soon (maybe 
>> in 1.006?) but it must be understood that the tighter rules will 
>> prompt changes in existing code.
> 
> 
> That's fine with me.  Many of us have been asking for this for quite a 
> while.

Yeah, me too. Don't care if it means 1 change or 1,000 in my code ...