cc @xedin

This is not actually a type-checker issue, `UInt.init(-1.0)` does type-check and picks `(Double) -> UInt` initializer. I think it's SIL diagnostics which emit this error. /cc ravikandhadai (JIRA User)

Edit: All three examples type-check successfully and use `(Double) -> UInt` initializer.

@swift-ci create

Comment by Ravichandhran Kandhadai Madhavan (JIRA)

As @xedin clarified, `UInt.init(-1.0)` is not treated as `(-1.0 as UInt)` and that's not the reason for the error. The error is emitted as `UInt.init(-1.0)` itself is incorrect. I believe that resolves this bug, right?

Or, the request here is to disable the compiler error in these cases? If so, I guess it is separate question of whether we should support this syntactic way of suppressing the error. (We do have suppressions for warnings as there is possibility the code can function correctly, but here it looks like it's a definite error, right?).

Also, if it is just for testing the implementation, it may be worth considering other options like passing flags like `disable-diagnostic-passes`. In fact, if the second example doesn't result in a compile-time error that may suffice to test the logic of the initializer (they must exercise the same code path, if I am not missing something).

cc guitardog (JIRA User)

Comment by Ravichandhran Kandhadai Madhavan (JIRA)

let x = -1.0
UInt( x )
I am not completely sure why this is not a compile-time error. I do remember some cases where the constant-folding diagnostics couldn't look into the implementation of some initializers that weren't transparent. But, if the same initializers are picked in both cases, then the error should be emitted. That is something to investigate. Thanks for reporting it!

Thanks theindigamer (JIRA User) and ravikandhadai (JIRA User), this helps to clarify what's going on. But yes, the expectation would be that the second and third examples produce the same error, whether at runtime or compile time, although it's reassuring that the discrepancy doesn't arise due to the issue I thought it was.