## digitalmars.D - Proposal: signed/unsigned integer comparisons

- etep kkow.net (20/20) Jun 06 2005 I think D should special case the builtin comparison operators instead o...
- Eric Fredricksen (4/29) Mar 05 2007 To chime in, I think instead all silent information-losing casts should ...

I think D should special case the builtin comparison operators instead of treating them as binary operators in terms of the integer promotion rules. This is really trivial to implement: if the lhs and rhs are integers and one is unsigned and the other is signed, either promote them to a signed integer that can hold the whole range of values or convert the expression internally to (using C's integer promotion rules): lhs is signed, rhs is unsigned ((lhs < 0) || (lhs < rhs)) for "lhs < rhs" ((lhs < 0) && (lhs OP rhs)) otherwise lhs is unsigned, rhs is signed ((rhs < 0) || (lhs > rhs)) for "lhs > rhs" ((rhs > 0) && (lhs OP rhs)) otherwise except force lhs and rhs to both be evaluated for side effects (and only once). With the C promotion rules, the expression to the right of the short-circuit operators are done using unsigned integers, so you can verify yourself that these are correct. The reason for the promotion rules in C is to reduce the complexity of handling lots of different operands and to unify the return type of the expression (since it's a truth value, special casing it this way for the operands is no problem). (reverse my username to contact me)

Jun 06 2005

To chime in, I think instead all silent information-losing casts should be done away with. I'm a little new to D so I was dumbfounded to discover that 0u > -1 evaluates to false. Both sides should be promoted to a large enough type to hold each before doing the comparison. Can anyone tell me if there is a plan to make such a change? etep kkow.net Wrote:I think D should special case the builtin comparison operators instead of treating them as binary operators in terms of the integer promotion rules. This is really trivial to implement: if the lhs and rhs are integers and one is unsigned and the other is signed, either promote them to a signed integer that can hold the whole range of values or convert the expression internally to (using C's integer promotion rules): lhs is signed, rhs is unsigned ((lhs < 0) || (lhs < rhs)) for "lhs < rhs" ((lhs < 0) && (lhs OP rhs)) otherwise lhs is unsigned, rhs is signed ((rhs < 0) || (lhs > rhs)) for "lhs > rhs" ((rhs > 0) && (lhs OP rhs)) otherwise except force lhs and rhs to both be evaluated for side effects (and only once). With the C promotion rules, the expression to the right of the short-circuit operators are done using unsigned integers, so you can verify yourself that these are correct. The reason for the promotion rules in C is to reduce the complexity of handling lots of different operands and to unify the return type of the expression (since it's a truth value, special casing it this way for the operands is no problem). (reverse my username to contact me)

Mar 05 2007