Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.lang.c++ > #85818

Re: initializer list type deduction rules

From Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups comp.lang.c++
Subject Re: initializer list type deduction rules
Date 2022-08-09 16:08 -0700
Organization A noiseless patient Spider
Message-ID <tcupcj$1gpp3$1@dont-email.me> (permalink)
References <tct3rm$1l9a$1@gioia.aioe.org>

Show all headers | View raw


On 8/9/2022 12:54 AM, Juha Nieminen wrote:
> 
> Even in such a simple case as this:
> 
>    unsigned values[] = { 1, 2, 3, 5 10 };
> 
> vs. this:
> 
>    for(unsigned value: { 1, 2, 3, 5, 10 })
> 
> if you turn on enough compiler warnings eg. gcc will warn about the
> second one (converting 'int' to 'unsigned' may change the sign of the
> result) but not the first one. I believe that in the first case the
> compiler deduces the type of the initializer list to be 'unsigned'
> (even though the literals themselves are of type 'int'), while in
> the second case it does not.
> 

There's no point in searching for any hidden logic in this or trying to 
guess the reason. The message you describe is not a standard diagnostic 
message, i.e. it is not in any way mandated by the standard. Both 
examples are perfectly valid as is. No diagnostic of any kind is expected.

The two contexts are significantly different semantically, which means 
that they are likely handled by two different parts of the compiler. The 
message is just a whim of some developer, who inserted that message in 
one context and didn't bother to do something similar to the other context.

-- 
Best regards,
Andrey

Back to comp.lang.c++ | Previous | NextPrevious in thread | Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread


Thread

initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-09 07:54 +0000
  Re: initializer list type deduction rules Bo Persson <bo@bo-persson.se> - 2022-08-09 10:43 +0200
  Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-09 09:00 -0700
    Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-09 16:06 +0000
      Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:32 +0000
        Re: initializer list type deduction rules Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-10 09:11 +0300
          Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-10 06:57 +0000
        Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:31 +0000
      Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-10 00:40 -0700
        Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 07:55 +0000
          Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-10 01:13 -0700
            Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-10 08:21 +0000
              Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-10 11:13 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 08:26 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 03:38 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 10:48 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 04:54 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:34 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 08:34 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 15:57 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 09:16 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-13 09:35 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-13 09:44 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-14 11:12 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 14:58 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 08:59 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 16:11 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 16:44 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 12:08 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 19:58 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Öö Tiib <ootiib@hot.ee> - 2022-08-12 16:42 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-13 18:14 +0200
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-14 11:06 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-15 11:34 +0200
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-15 19:03 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-15 21:23 +0200
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules red floyd <no.spam.here@its.invalid> - 2022-08-15 13:51 -0700
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-16 19:16 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-21 22:23 +0300
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2022-08-22 08:08 +0200
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Paavo Helde <eesnimi@osa.pri.ee> - 2022-08-22 11:37 +0300
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-22 10:23 +0000
          Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 06:24 +0000
            Re: initializer list type deduction rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-11 16:37 +0100
              Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-11 20:12 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Ben Bacarisse <ben.usenet@bsb.me.uk> - 2022-08-12 00:09 +0100
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-12 11:51 +0000
            Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 08:29 +0000
              Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-12 12:08 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Muttley@dastardlyhq.com - 2022-08-12 14:37 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules scott@slp53.sl.home (Scott Lurndal) - 2022-08-12 15:01 +0000
                Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-15 06:04 +0000
  Re: initializer list type deduction rules Andrey Tarasevich <andreytarasevich@hotmail.com> - 2022-08-09 16:08 -0700
    Re: initializer list type deduction rules Juha Nieminen <nospam@thanks.invalid> - 2022-08-10 02:34 +0000

csiph-web