On 13/01/14 00:23, james wrote:
On 11/01/2014 22:38, Owen Shepherd wrote:
I agree, however, I feel that the names like "i32" and "u32" should
be trap-on-overflow types. The non overflow ones should be "i32w"
(wrapping) or similar.
Why? Because I expect that otherwise people will default to the
wrapping types. Less typing. "It'll never be a security issue", or
"Looks safe to me", etc, etc. Secure by default is a good thing, IMO
I don't think making 'i32' have different semantics by default from
int32_t (or from the 'i32' typedef most of us will have used for
years) is a good idea in a wannabe systems programming language. It
is too surprising.
There might be a good case for having a pragma control some 'check for
overflow' in a paranoid test mode, but i think that most programmers,
most of the time, will expect 2s complement arithmetic 'as usual'.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
Coincidentally, i32 already has different semantics to int32_t: overflow
of signed types is undefined behaviour in C, but is defined (as
wrap-around) in Rust.
Huon
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
