• Derek Parnell (11/11) Aug 20 2005 I just tripped over a nasty 'feature' of D.
• AJG (6/13) Aug 20 2005 I don't see one either. It should give a warning at least.

Derek Parnell <derek psych.ward> writes:

I just tripped over a nasty 'feature' of D.

The two lines below compiled okay!

  void foo(uint A) { ... }
  foo(-1);

The -1 was implicitly converted to 4294967295. WTF!

Is there any good reason why a signed value should be implicitly converted
to an unsigned value?

-- 
Derek Parnell
Melbourne, Australia
21/08/2005 9:43:30 AM

AJG <AJG_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <1vs47npbgypcu.1m42hzm9045ba.dlg 40tude.net>, Derek Parnell says...
I just tripped over a nasty 'feature' of D.

The two lines below compiled okay!

  void foo(uint A) { ... }
  foo(-1);

The -1 was implicitly converted to 4294967295. WTF!

Is there any good reason why a signed value should be implicitly converted
to an unsigned value?

I don't see one either. It should give a warning at least.

Uint/int conversion can result in data problems, as seen above. I thought that
sort of thing was being avoided in D with implicit conversions?

I say require a cast to force conversion.
--AJG.