«

On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 11:34:35 -0400, Ron Natalie wrote:

>
> "Nils Petter Vaskinn" <> wrote in message
>> Well yes, when I think about it, but I guess that was only meant to
>> illustrate the problem, replace the zeros with something else like 1.23
>> and you get the problem we're talking about.
>>
> In that case the program is ill-formed. There must be an unambiguous
> type to that expression that does not depend on what the test argument
> is.

Yes, and if you had followed the discussion the original question was WHY
this was the case, and it couldn't be determined dynamically at runtime.
The most convincing argument (IMHO) beeing that it would be too expensive
(runtime performance wise) compared to the benefit (me using one less if
statement).

regards
NPV