On Wed, 19 Oct 2011 23:01:34 -0400, Steven Schveighoffer <schvei...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
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.
It doesn't? I thought double could do 53 bits?
Yes. You're right. Sorry, my brain automatically skipped forward to 5_000_000_000
=> long => real.
Although I agree, long should map to real, because obviously not all longs
fit into a double exactly.
-Steve
