Reply to bearophile,
John C:
Did you not read the change log?
"Implicit integral conversions that could result in loss of
significant bits are no longer allowed."
This was the code:
ubyte m = (n <= 0 ? 0 : (n >= 255 ? 255 : n));
That last n is guaranteed to fit inside an ubyte (yes, I understand
the compiler is not smart enough yet to understand it, but from the
things explained by Andrei I have thought it was. So I am wrong and I
have shown this to other people, that may be interested. I have also
encouraged to make the compiler smarter to avoid a cast in such case,
because this is a single expression, so range propagation is probably
not too much hard to implement given the current design of the
front-end. You have missed most of the purposes of my post).
Bye,
bearophile
I'm going with Steven on this one. Making the legality of code dependent
on it's semantics is risky because it then ends up with bazaar portability
issues or requiters that the scope of the semantics analysts engine be part
of the language spec.
