digitalmars.D - Implicit ulong literals no longer?
- Stewart Gordon (23/23) Oct 13 2005 Oops, hit the wrong 'group before. Let's try again....
- Walter Bright (3/16) Oct 16 2005 I think this will reduce bugs with inadvertent signed/unsigned confusion...
-
Stewart Gordon
(13/23)
Nov 04 2005
Oops, hit the wrong 'group before. Let's try again....
I noticed that the spec for integer literals has changed. Decimal
integer literals without the U suffix are now always int or long, never
ulong. But why?
Previously, this line would have compiled:
ulong ul = 18446744073709551615;
I did notice, in the change log for 0.105
"Changed integral literal type determination to match C99 6.4.4.1."
which I'm guessing is something to do with it. But I don't see the
point of this change. The "looks like C, acts like C" principle doesn't
seem to be at work here, since the subset of cases that are still
allowed seem to have the same behaviour specified as they did under the
old spec. I certainly don't see any bug that allowing the above line
could cause.
Stewart.
--
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.1
GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS-
PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on
the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Oct 13 2005
"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:diltob$1ku9$2 digitaldaemon.com...
I noticed that the spec for integer literals has changed. Decimal
integer literals without the U suffix are now always int or long, never
ulong. But why?
Previously, this line would have compiled:
ulong ul = 18446744073709551615;
I did notice, in the change log for 0.105
"Changed integral literal type determination to match C99 6.4.4.1."
which I'm guessing is something to do with it. But I don't see the
point of this change. The "looks like C, acts like C" principle doesn't
seem to be at work here, since the subset of cases that are still
allowed seem to have the same behaviour specified as they did under the
old spec. I certainly don't see any bug that allowing the above line
could cause.
I think this will reduce bugs with inadvertent signed/unsigned confusion.
Oct 16 2005
Stewart Gordon <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> Walter Bright wrote:"Stewart Gordon" <smjg_1998 yahoo.com> wrote in message news:diltob$1ku9$2 digitaldaemon.com...<snip><snip>Previously, this line would have compiled: ulong ul = 18446744073709551615; I did notice, in the change log for 0.105 "Changed integral literal type determination to match C99 6.4.4.1."I think this will reduce bugs with inadvertent signed/unsigned confusion.Can you give an example of such a bug? Stewart. -- -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.1 GCS/M d- s:- C++ a->--- UB P+ L E W++ N+++ o K- w++ O? M V? PS- PE- Y? PGP- t- 5? X? R b DI? D G e++>++++ h-- r-- !y ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ My e-mail is valid but not my primary mailbox. Please keep replies on the 'group where everyone may benefit.
Nov 04 2005