setfault overloading Base.int incorrectly

[WestleyArgentum]

I'll build a newer version and test again soon, but I have to run for now

               _
   _       _ _(_)_     |  A fresh approach to technical computing
  (_)     | (_) (_)    |  Documentation: http://docs.julialang.org
   _ _   _| |_  __ _   |  Type "help()" to list help topics
  | | | | | | |/ _` |  |
  | | |_| | | | (_| |  |  Version 0.2.0+3 (2013-11-19 21:30 UTC)
 _/ |\__'_|_|_|\__'_|  |  release-0.2/09be0a1 (fork: 3 commits, 3 days)
|__/                   |  x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0


julia> import Base.int

julia> int(d) = 64
Warning: Method definition int(Any,) in module Base at base.jl:72 overwritten in module Main at none:1.
int (generic function with 11 methods)

julia> djdjd
Segmentation fault: 11

julia> Base.versioninfo()
Julia Version 0.2.0+3
Commit 09be0a1 (2013-11-19 21:30 UTC)
Platform Info:
  System: Darwin (x86_64-apple-darwin13.0.0)
  WORD_SIZE: 64
  BLAS: libopenblas (USE64BITINT DYNAMIC_ARCH NO_AFFINITY)
  LAPACK: libopenblas
  LIBM: libopenlibm

[Keno]

I'm gonna go with "Don't do that". There's absolutely no way to guarantee correct execution if conversion to integer gives wrong results.

[StefanKarpinski]

Yeah, this is like doing #define 2 3 at the top of a C program and complaining that it doesn't work right. In theory, we shouldn't segfault, but I'm not sure if that's even reasonable.

[JeffBezanson]

This is probably related to #265, but given that int will be used for things like indexes passed to native code, it's quite possible that there's no way to avoid segfaulting with this definition.