Re: Decimal: Formal review begins.

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2025-01-19 19:18:20

Ruben Perez wrote:
> 3. I found conversions between decimal types unintuitive. I'd expect
> conversions that don't imply loss of precision to be implicit. For instance, I
> think that these should be implicit:
> 
> * decimal32 to {decimal32_fast, decimal64, decimal64_fast, decimal128,
> decimal128_fast}.
> * decimal64 to {decimal64_fast, decimal128, decimal128_fast}.
> * decimal128 to decimal128_fast.
> * (Same for the fast types).

That's what the TR specifies, and it was what the documentation said when
I looked at it last time, although it's been changed now.

I, too, would expect this behavior. Or, if there are reasons to not do it,
maybe the authors can explain what they are.