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_types

Similarly, 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