In article <3d8f0504@news.povray.org> , Warp <war### [at] tagpovrayorg>  wrote:

>>  If those who
>> specified the standards had intended to prevent implicit conversions they
>> could have done so.  It is not the compiler writers job to second-guess
>> those who made the standard nor those who write code following the standard.
>
>   I don't understand why you deliberately misread what I said. I didn't
> say that the compiler is preventing implicit conversions. I said that if
> an implicit conversion is losing information, then that can be a programming
> mistake and the compiler is warning about it.

No, you said "What gcc is doing is to recommend you to make the conversion
explicit." and I never said what you imply, so this is pointless.

In any case, I don't have the time to waste in another game with you trying
to turn my words around until they say something you don't like.  I said
what I said and it is very clear, if you don't understand it, so be it.

I am leaving this discussion here, simply ignoring the rest of your post.

    Thorsten

____________________________________________________
Thorsten Froehlich, Duisburg, Germany
e-mail: tho### [at] trfde

Visit POV-Ray on the web: http://mac.povray.org

Post a reply to this message