Re: Operator assignment and strict_types

Bumping the following message from 2018; just built the latest HEAD and this still seems to be an issue (assuming it's considered a bug).

Best, Marc

On Mon, Mar 26, 2018 at 5:36 PM Marc Simpson marc@0branch.com wrote:

Hi folks,

It looks like operator assignment (op=), increment and decrement statements aren't subjected to the same typechecks as their more explicit equivalents.

For example, neither the post-increment nor += statements below warn with strict_types enabled, even though they assign values outside of foo's restricted int domain:

int(3..3) foo = 3;
foo++; // no warning
foo += 1; // no warning
foo = foo + 1; // warning from strict_types

Similarly, operator assignment on aggregates fails to elicit a warning:

array(int) a = ({});
multiset(int) b = (<>);
mapping(int:int) c = ([]);

// no warnings
a += ({ "hey" });
b += (< "hey" >);
c += ([ "hey": "there" ]);

// warnings from strict_types
a = a + ({ "hey" });
b = b + (< "hey" >);
c = c + ([ "hey": "there" ]);

I'm guessing this is because the checks provided by the F_ASSIGN/F_ASSIGN_SELF case (las.c) only apply to direct assignment; op= and friends are presumably not instrumented for strict_types in the same manner.

Have there been any discussions around addressing this inconsistency?

Thanks, Marc