void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }

Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or form valid code?

How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?

n/t

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote:
> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
>
> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or form valid code?
>
> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?
>

lern2warningsflag.

On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:32 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote:
> n/t
>

I'm not sure what this has to do with you not specifying -w.

Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote:
>> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
>>
>> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or form valid code?
>>
>> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?
>>
> 
> lern2warningsflag.

"Warning. Your code is broken."

I still claim it should actually be an error, although the only practical and correct solution might be full ranged type support.

downs wrote:
> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
>>>
>>> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or form valid code?
>>>
>>> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?
>>>
>> lern2warningsflag.
> 
> "Warning. Your code is broken."
> 
> I still claim it should actually be an error, although the only practical and correct solution might be full ranged type support.

I don't get it.  Why can that not be simple implicit type casting?

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> downs wrote:
>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de> wrote:
>>>> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
>>>>
>>>> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or form valid code?
>>>>
>>>> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?
>>>>
>>> lern2warningsflag.
>>
>> "Warning. Your code is broken."
>>
>> I still claim it should actually be an error, although the only practical and correct solution might be full ranged type support.
> 
> I don't get it.  Why can that not be simple implicit type casting?

Because short is not a superset of int.

downs wrote:
> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
> 
> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or form valid code?
> 
> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?

I totally agree.  This should be an error.  You should be required to explicitly cast.

-Joel

downs wrote:
> Chris R. Miller wrote:
>> downs wrote:
>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
>>>>>
>>>>> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or
>>>>> form valid code?
>>>>>
>>>>> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?
>>>>>
>>>> lern2warningsflag.
>>> "Warning. Your code is broken."
>>>
>>> I still claim it should actually be an error, although the only
>>> practical and correct solution might be full ranged type support.
>> I don't get it.  Why can that not be simple implicit type casting?
> 
> Because short is not a superset of int.

Well.... then it's just a loss of precision warning like on every other language (Java and C++ off the top of my head).

-w and be on thy way, unless I'm missing something else.

Chris R. Miller wrote:
> downs wrote:
>> Chris R. Miller wrote:
>>> downs wrote:
>>>> Jarrett Billingsley wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:26 PM, downs <default_357-line@yahoo.de>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> void main() { int i; short x; x = i; }
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Excuse me, but - how exactly is it that this is in any way, shape or
>>>>>> form valid code?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> How can I trust a language that allows those kind of shenanigans?
>>>>>>
>>>>> lern2warningsflag.
>>>> "Warning. Your code is broken."
>>>>
>>>> I still claim it should actually be an error, although the only
>>>> practical and correct solution might be full ranged type support.
>>> I don't get it.  Why can that not be simple implicit type casting?
>>
>> Because short is not a superset of int.
> 
> Well.... then it's just a loss of precision warning like on every other language (Java and C++ off the top of my head).
> 
> -w and be on thy way, unless I'm missing something else.

No, no. In Java it's an error, an explicit cast is required.

http://www.programmersheaven.com/2/FAQ-JAVA-Type-Conversion-Casting

Which is perfect. It expresses the intents of the programmer:

long x = ...;
int y = (int) x; // yes, I know I might loose information, but I'm sure 

                 // it won't happen

However, if you see this code (in D):

long x = ...;
int y = x;

you start wondering whether the original author simply forgot to add the cast or he knew what he was doing. How can you know?

I like the compiler to force you to write an explicit cast. It is saying: "Hey, please tell me you know what you are doing here... because maybe you didn't notice you might loose information here".