Created on 2020-01-07.00:00:00 last changed 2 months ago
[ 2020-01-25 Issue Prioritization ]
Priority to 3 after reflector discussion.
The working draft ignores the possibility that:
the value of an expression of integer-class type might not be representable by the target integer type of a conversion, and
the value of an expression of integer type might not be representable by the target integer-class type of a conversion.
Presumably the behavior of these cases is undefined by omission; is this actually the intent?Notably (2) could be specified away by mandating that all integer-class types are capable of representing the value range of all integer types of the same signedness.
|2020-01-25 14:39:45||admin||set||messages: + msg10962|