On 03/09/18 12:05, Emre Hasegeli wrote:
> In this case, I cannot see any other option than adding those as
> separate cast functions. Should we mark this entry as "returned with
> feedback"?
>
> We can also consider turning the current float to numeric casts to
> explicit as they are causing data loss. I am not sure how much it
> would impact backwards-compatibility. The counter argument is the
> numeric to float casts being IMPLICIT. They are causing data loss for
> sure, but I believe there are different reasons to keep them as
> IMPLICIT.
Thanks for the feedback. I will mark it RWF myself, as the backward-
compatibility issues are kind of paralyzing, and I don't think I'll
have time in this CF to give it enough further thought anyway.
I wonder whether even changing a formerly-implicit cast to explicit
would be too much of a behavior change for existing code that expects
the current behavior?
-Chap
