On 03/09/18 12:05, Emre Hasegeli wrote: > In this case, I cannot see any other option than adding those as > separate cast functions. Should we mark this entry as "returned with > feedback"? > > We can also consider turning the current float to numeric casts to > explicit as they are causing data loss. I am not sure how much it > would impact backwards-compatibility. The counter argument is the > numeric to float casts being IMPLICIT. They are causing data loss for > sure, but I believe there are different reasons to keep them as > IMPLICIT.
Thanks for the feedback. I will mark it RWF myself, as the backward- compatibility issues are kind of paralyzing, and I don't think I'll have time in this CF to give it enough further thought anyway. I wonder whether even changing a formerly-implicit cast to explicit would be too much of a behavior change for existing code that expects the current behavior? -Chap
