On 8/14/13 2:26 PM, Andre Artus wrote:
On Sunday, 11 August 2013 at 17:01:46 UTC, Yota wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 17:35:18 UTC, monarch_dodra wrote:
On Friday, 9 August 2013 at 15:28:10 UTC, Manfred Nowak wrote:
michaelc37 wrote:
WTF -> -1 is greater than 7 ????
From the docs:
It is an error to have one operand be signed and the other unsigned
for a
<, <=, > or >= expression.
-manfred
Interesting. I didn't know it was documented as being an outright
error, I thought it was just "surprising"...
I don't think Walter will ever accept to make it illegal though,
breaks too much code. If this was a change he was OK with, I think we
would have had it since day one, or at least, years ago.
I remember hearing somewhere that D is about enforcing users to write
CORRECT code. I would really be disappointed with the language if
this sort of gotcha weren't eliminated.
If I look at this assert, I shouldn't be expecting it to pass.
static assert(-1 > cast(size_t)7);
IMHO, as long as this sort of comparison causes a compile-time error,
as the docs say they should, this kind of breaking change is the of
very good sort. The sort that reveals bugs in code. (Like when they
changed the NULL macro to mean 'nullptr' instead of 0 in C++.) I
couldn't imagine a programmer exploiting this intentionally, as it
serves no purpose.
I agree, breaking changes that expose bugs in your code are the good
kind. The time spent fixing compile time errors is more than compensated
for by the time saved not having to hunt down those bugs.
Having worked with languages where reference types are non-nullable by
default I wish more languages did the same.
Which are those languages? I'm interested.
