Mail Archives: djgpp/2001/01/31/08:36:39
Eli Zaretskii wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jan 2001, Rudolf Polzer wrote:
>
> > no -W switch, the only warnings I accept are about implicit conversions
> > between int and double since an explicit typecast for such a conversion
> > (static_cast) looks terrible. Since I often use long double and I do not
> > like C cast notation, but long double a = long double (b) does not work, I
> > consequently cast implicitly between the both.
>
> Hmm? Is this in C or in C++? I don't think you need any casts in a C
> program for assigning int to a double or the other way around.
Nor do you in C++. It's strange that GCC chooses to warn about
this in C++ but not in C.
> > Compiling: x.cpp
> > In function `double intconv<double>(double>':
> > x.cpp (9) Error: instantiated from here
(Of course, this isn't an error, it's just a RHIDE misinterpretation
of a warning message, which was what Rudolf Polzer was pointing out.
I thought this was fixed in newer versions of RHIDE.)
> > x.cpp (3) Warning: initialization to `int' from `double'
>
> If you don't like strongly typed languages, don't use C++.
Some people consider C++ to be a weakly typed language.
It depends on your perspective...
In any case, C++ is only slightly more strongly typed than C,
and there is no difference at all as far as initializing an int
with a double is concerned.
- Raw text -