Integer conversions too pedantic in 64-bit

[Jason House]

The very fact that you didn't have issues with size_t before compiling in 64 bit mode seems like a short-coming of D. It should be hard to write code that isn't platform independent. One would kind of hope that size_t was a distinct type that could have uints assigned to them without casts. It might even be good to allow size_t to implicitly convert to ulong.

dsimcha Wrote:

> Now that DMD has a 64-bit beta available, I'm working on getting a whole bunch
> of code to compile in 64 mode.  Frankly, the compiler is way too freakin'
> pedantic when it comes to implicit conversions (or lack thereof) of
> array.length.  99.999% of the time it's safe to assume an array is not going
> to be over 4 billion elements long.  I'd rather have a bug the 0.001% of the
> time than deal with the pedantic errors the rest of the time, because I think
> it would be less total time and effort invested.  To force me to either put
> casts in my code everywhere or change my entire codebase to use wider integers
> (with ripple effects just about everywhere) strikes me as purity winning out
> over practicality.