[rust-dev] Warn about implicit integer conversion

Graydon Hoare graydon at mozilla.com
Thu Dec 20 09:45:34 PST 2012

On 12-12-20 05:59 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote:
> Lindsey Kuper wrote:
>> Our thinking at the time we implemented suffix inference was that if
>> you went so far as to write the optional type annotation, then you
>> should get the type you asked for, no questions asked, overflows and
>> all.  After all, sometimes people do want intentional overflow.  But
>> if it's causing nasty surprises, then, yeah, it should be revisited.
> I think the best thing would be a simple lint check that visits each
> literal and checks whether it can fit into the type assigned to it.  It
> will catch many simple cases like this one.

It is certainly the simplest thing for this case, but I'd also like not
to paper it over, but to address the bug its general form. The question
of exactly what constant-folding to do in the front/middle ends, and
what sorts of conditions during that count as errors, is worth nailing
down; it will resurface (already has, I've seen several "surprise"
constant / non-constant behaviors, and heard others stubbing toes on same).

It's already partly-implemented, and I think there's a plan coming into
focus, just needs more care / thought.


More information about the Rust-dev mailing list