Re: A new notion: stronglly-typed-by-user language

["J-P. Rosen" <rosen@adalog.fr>]

Maciej Sobczak a �crit :
[..]
> No. Not only it is not logical - it will not even compile.
> 
[...]
> Your example above cannot compile, because the actual parameter int
> cannot be promoted to long (int is never promoted, only "lower" types
> are) and its conversion to either short or long has equal rank -
> therefore the call is ambiguous.
> 
> This has *nothing* to do with representation - these types are all
> different even if they have the same representation.
> 
[...]
> Overload resolution does *not* depend on implementation in C++, it is
> precisely defined with no relation to representation.
I admit my C++ is a bit old, based mainly on Stroustrup where I picked
this example from. Is current C++ differs, it is a good thing, but I
still wonder
1) if your description is about standard (1998) C++?
2) if all compilers really behave like this?

> Just imagine - what would happen if there was a C++ programmer on your
> tutorial and you presented these arguments? ;-) ;-) ;-)
If my point is wrong, I'll withdraw it. The first thing when arguing is
to have valid argument, otherwise it is too easy to dismiss you.
Thanks for pointing out valid arguments!

-- 
---------------------------------------------------------
           J-P. Rosen (rosen@adalog.fr)
Visit Adalog's web site at http://www.adalog.fr