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