1 matches bool, 2 matches long

[deadalnix]

On Friday, 26 April 2013 at 02:29:07 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
> On Thursday, April 25, 2013 17:35:34 Walter Bright wrote:
>> > Is bool more specialized than long
>> 
>> Yes, because a bool can be implicitly converted to a long, but 
>> a long cannot
>> be implicitly converted to a bool.
>
> However, given that bool isn't even an integral type, it seems 
> very wrong that
> it would be a better match than something which _is_ an 
> integral type. Given
> that the compiler already inserts explicit casts to bool in 
> conditions to
> solve the primary case where you want a non-boolean value to 
> implicitly
> convert to bool, it really seems to me that the other 
> conversions to and from
> bool which are currently accepted are far too lax. Another 
> example of this
> would be something like "foo" ~ true. I don't understand why 
> conversions like
> that are allowed by the spec. They're just going to cause bugs.
>
> - Jonathan M Davis

And indeed they do. I did face some very weird bugs caused by 
that already.