Mark Shinwell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Ian Ollmann wrote: > > stronger type checking seems like a good idea to me in general. > > I agree, but I don't really want to break lots of code all at once, > even if that code is being slightly more slack than it perhaps ought > to be :-) > > Given that no-one has really objected to stronger type-checking here > _per se_, then I see two ways forward: > > 1. Treat this as a regression: fix it and cause errors upon bad > conversions, but risk breaking code. > > 2. Emit a warning in cases of converting "vector signed int" to > "vector unsigned int", etc., and state that the behaviour will change > to an error in a later version. > > Thoughts?
I would vote for: break the code, but provide an option to restore the old behaviour, and mention the option in the error message. Note that these sorts of conversions affect C++ overloaded functions, so in some cases people will not see the new error--they will see that some function call can not be made. My guess is that this is sufficiently unusual that we can get away with breaking it without a useful error message. Ian
