[rust-dev] Integer overflow, round -2147483648
jhm456 at gmail.com
Tue Jun 24 17:48:54 PDT 2014
Yeah. And would programmers also have to convert each literal, like in the
Java-ish hashCode() example:
result = (wint) 31 * result + (wint) areaCode;
because adding a non-wraparound integer and a wraparound integer is
Hey, it's "just" 5 more arithmetic operators. (A building architect once
said, "'Just' is a 4-letter word.")
On Tue, Jun 24, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Daniel Micay <danielmicay at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 24/06/14 08:39 PM, Vadim Chugunov wrote:
> > I mostly agree, though for #1, I think that new int types would be more
> > appropriate. A set of special operators seems like an overkill for a
> > relatively infrequently used functionality. Annotations are too broad
> > (what if I need to do both wrapping and non-wrapping calculations in the
> > same scope?).
> Introducing new types would make the language more painful to use, and
> it would be difficult to determine the correct types to use at API
> boundaries. It would be a large backwards compatibility hazard among
> other issues, and would introduce performance overhead due to issues
> like `&[u32]` and `&[u32c]` being different types.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rust-dev