Re: [slang-users] Version 2.3.3 of the slang library released

[Jakob Stierhof <jakob.stierhof@xxxxxx>]

This was just one of the examples. All qualifiers making this expression 
something else than ULong_Type produce this error. If any negative 
expression of an unsigned type is throwing an error this is also fine, 
what bit me a couple of times is that

   slsh> -1u;

evaluates to ULong_Type, not UInt_Type as I would expect. Also, throwing 
an error on literal unsigned "negative" input seems inconsistent with

   slsh> typecast(-1, UShort_Type);

But that might also just be me and my notorious abuse of short notations.

Jakob

On 05.08.22 13:49, John E. Davis wrote:
> Jakob Stierhof<jakob.stierhof@xxxxxx>  wrote:
> > thanks for the release, I will update our system next week and give it a
> > proper test. However, one think I was noticing and want to point out is
> > the behavior for unsigned literals. I have mentioned this a while back
> > and I still don't know what the best way is to solve this. The issue
> > remains so far:
> >
> >     slsh> _slang_version_string;
> >      2.3.3
> >     slsh> -1uh;
> >      Literal integer constant is too large for UShort_Type
> >
> > I thought I mention this again so it does not get lost.
> Is the intent to produce SHORT_MAX?  If so, then why not use
> SHORT_MAX?  Alternatively `typecast (-1, UShort_Type)' may be used. I
> also realize the inconsistency that that -1uL does not produce this
> error message.
>
> Thanks,
> --John
>
> > Regards,
> > Jakob
> _______________________________________________
> For list information, visit<http://jedsoft.org/slang/mailinglists.html>.