Thanks!
On Tue, Jul 7, 2020 at 5:00 AM Henrik Grubbström (Lysator) @ Pike (-) developers forum 10353@lyskom.lysator.liu.se wrote:
Hi folks,
Hi Marc.
It took some time, but...
It looks like operator assignment (op=), increment and decrement statements aren't subjected to the same typechecks as their more explicit equivalents.
Correct.
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_typesSimilarly, operator assignment on aggregates fails to elicit a warning:
[...]
Fixed in Pike devel.
The operator assignment expressions now warn in the same places as their corresponding explict syntax does.
The ++ and -- operators have not been modified (yet).
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.
Correct.
Have there been any discussions around addressing this inconsistency?
Now there has...
/grubba