On 11/06/2013 09:46 AM, Maxim Fomin wrote:
> On Wednesday, 6 November 2013 at 17:10:34 UTC, Ali Çehreli wrote:
>>
>> I would be very surprised if unary "-" produced a different type from
>> the operand:
>>
>> Ali
>
> Operator does not produce type, it produces value of expression, and
> type of expression happens not to be the type you expected.
Thanks. That's what I meant. :)
> But such
> expectations need not correspond to language rules (try to think from
> from language laywer perspective).
I still argue that the expression -expr must have the same type as expr.
> In bearophile case, I guess
> Typedef!double overloads unary operator which returns double which is
> primary reason for such behavior.
That's what I deduced from qznc's post and tried to mean that such
behavior would be confusing to programmers.
Ali
