On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 00:00:48 UTC, Dennis wrote:
On Tuesday, 5 November 2024 at 20:29:08 UTC, Andy Valencia ...
You can also use an assignment operator, which allows overflow
without explicit cast:
```D
s *= -1;
```
...
Hi Dennis,
Shouldn't these two act the same?
void main(){
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 16:38:40 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
In response to Andy and Matheus, I think implementing your own
type might be a solution:
Oh, am I too hasty? There was already an s in the test
environment, so I thought 2 overloads were unnecessary. I don't
have a programmer
On Tuesday, 5 November 2024 at 17:32:00 UTC, Andy Valencia wrote:
integral promotion not done for -val
```d
I ended up with this, but is negating a short really this
problematic, or did I miss something?
static if (!__traits(isUnsigned, T)) {
if (val < 0) {
static if
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 11:51:41 UTC, Matheus wrote:
Shouldn't these two act the same?
That would make sense, but you wouldn't make a special case just
for that specific expression, and it's hard to find a good rule
that generalizes to all expressions.
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 16:48:54 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 16:38:40 UTC, Salih Dincer
wrote:
In response to Andy and Matheus, I think implementing your own
type might be a solution:
...
Thanks for the info and the code.
Matheus.
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 16:27:22 UTC, Dennis wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 11:51:41 UTC, Matheus wrote:
Shouldn't these two act the same?
That would make sense, but you wouldn't make a special case
just for that specific expression, and it's hard to find a good
rule that g
On Wednesday, 6 November 2024 at 16:25:40 UTC, Salih Dincer wrote:
In response to Andy and Matheus, I think implementing your own
type might be a solution:
Even in my own type, single overload was enough. So I have to
correct my mistake:
```d
void main()
{
Short foo = { -21 };
s *= -1;
