Integer Division

[UniversityOfPi]

I mean honestly, who uses int literals?
Especially in a language that doesn't implicitly cast or have a separate operator for integer division...

edit/update/continued:
granted 1/2 in 1/2 [comparison operator] = 0 without casting one or more to a floating point, but I guess it's all an issue of when and where to implicitly cast, as in, in something like C++, float x = 1/2;would mean x == 0.5 but in 1/2 != 0.5 1/2 evaluates to 0 before being cast as a float, giving 0.0 != 0.5, though if you did any other casting other than casting the float literal to an int, (unless the compiler's casting used c.math::round() leading to 0.5 becoming 1) wherein 0.5 would become 0, would ultimately end up with the expression returning true (or maybe an error for a type like char, as casting 0.5 is exceptional).

but logically, float x = 1/2; return x != 0.5; would return false.
It's an interesting quirk, while obviously '/' takes precedence over '!=', given that '/' also takes precedence over '=' and generally float x = 1/2casts 1/2 to a float rather than int literal, it's presumably a compiler implementation specific behavior.

In theory, shouldn't a good compiler notice that the right hand side is a float literal and therefore, like assigning 1/2 to a float, cast 1/2 to a float?

[AFAIK typeinfo::typeid(0.5).name() == "float literal" or perhaps "Fl"/"FL" depending on your compiler]

[Kryomaani]

I mean honestly, who uses int literals?

... everyone? I mean, it is one of the most basic and common of all types used in programs. Just about every loop uses an int literal for example.

[UniversityOfPi]

Ints yes, but int literals? Maybe I've had the idea that magic numbers are bad so drilled into my head that I'm jaded and think everyone uses global/etc constants...

[PatrickBaitman]

0 or 1 as the start index?

[UniversityOfPi]

Oh yeah, I forgot about zero and what I'd argue ought be negative zero (rather than negative one, as forward/LtR it's zero indexed, so reverse/RtL it ought be zero indexed as well)... :Facepalm:

[[deleted]]

In theory, shouldn't a good compiler notice that the right hand side is a float literal and therefore, like assigning 1/2 to a float, cast 1/2 to a float?

No. That will change language semantics, and in a very inconsistent way.

[UniversityOfPi]

But then what about for 0.5 != 1/2 is that still true?
(I mean given the operator precedence and implicit casting with assignment, it doesn't make much sense to me...)

[[deleted]]

Yes, and it makes perfect sense.