On Fri, 21 Oct 2011 09:00:48 -0400, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 October 2011 10:53, Manu <turkey...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 October 2011 09:00, Don <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
[snip]
1: Seems reasonable for literals; "Integer literals and expressions should
use range propagation to use
the thinnest loss-less conversion"... but can you clarify what you mean by
'expressions'? I assume we're talking strictly literal expressions?
Consider sqrt(i % 10). No matter what i is, the range of i % 10 is 0-9.
I was more thinking of whether plain old assignment would be allowed:
float f = myshort;
Of course, if we deny implicit conversion, shouldn't the following fail to
compile?
float position = index * resolution;
2b: Does runtime bounds checking actually addresses the question; which of
an ambiguous function to choose?
If I read you correctly, 2b suggests bounds checking the implicit cast for
data loss at runtime, but which to choose? float/double/real? We'll still
arguing that question even with this proposal taken into consideration... :/
Perhaps I missed something?
Yes, nut only because I didn't include it. I was thinking of
float f = i;
as opposed to
func(i)
for some reason. Bounds checking would only make sense if func(float) was the
only overload.
Naturally all this complexity assumes we go with the tie-breaker approach,
which I'm becoming more and more convinced is a bad plan...
Then again, with regards to 1, the function chosen will depend on the
magnitude of the int, perhaps a foreign constant, you might not clearly be
able to know which one is called... What if the ambiguous overloads don't
actually perform identical functionality with just different precision? ..
Then whoever wrote the library was Evil(tm). Given that these rules wouldn't
interfere with function hijacking, I'm not sure of the practicality of this
concern. Do you have an example?
I don't like the idea of it being uncertain.
And one more thing to ponder, is the return type telling here?
float x = sqrt(2);
Obviously this may only work for these pure maths functions where the
return type is matched to the args, but maybe it's an element worth
considering.
ie, if the function parameter is ambiguous, check for disambiguation via
the return type...? Sounds pretty nasty! :)
