On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:57:48 -0400, Robert Jacques <sandf...@jhu.edu> wrote:
On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 22:52:14 -0400, Marco Leise <marco.le...@gmx.de> wrote:
Am 20.10.2011, 02:46 Uhr, schrieb dsimcha <dsim...@yahoo.com>:
On 10/19/2011 6:25 PM, Alvaro wrote:
El 19/10/2011 20:12, dsimcha escribió:
== Quote from Don (nos...@nospam.com)'s article
The hack must go.
No. Something as simple as sqrt(2) must work at all costs, period. A
language
that adds a bunch of silly complications to something this simple is
fundamentally
broken. I don't remember your post on implicit preferred conversions,
but IMHO
implicit conversions of integer to double is a no-brainer. Requiring
something
this simple to be explicit is Java/Pascal-like overkill on
explicitness.
Completely agree.
I call that uncluttered programming. No excessive explicitness should be
necessary when what you mean is obvious (under some simple conventions).
Leads to clearer code.
Yes, and for the most part uncluttered programming is one of D's biggest
strengths. Let's not ruin it by complicating sqrt(2).
What is the compiler to do with sqrt(5_000_000_000) ? It doesn't fit into
an int, but it fits into a double.
Simple, is a 5_000_000_000 long, and longs convert to reals. Also,
5_000_000_000 does not fit, exactly inside a double.
Opps. That should be '5_000_000_000 is a long' not ' is a 5_000_000_000 long'
