On Monday, 25 June 2012 at 10:08:03 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 25-Jun-12 14:01, bearophile wrote:
Tobias Pankrath:
Maybe you should post this to the main newsgroup.
I don't know if the main newsgroup is the right place.
I would prefer a switch that does this per scope, i.e:
I think both a compiler switch for the compilation unit, and a
scope
pragma to enable/disable locally, are useful.
While I think that if you seek anything other then plain fixnum
you'd better make wrapper type adding nessary overflow checks.
It should be almost as fast as plain fixnum if it's not then
it's a bug/feature request for optimizer/inliner.
If you have already written code, it may be cumbersome to port it
to a wrapper type, if the only thing you want to test is, that it
does not have overflows.
You can't just do alias MyWrapper!int int; can you?
They are a common source of bugs, detecting those should be made
easy. I do see this as automatic DbC for build-ins and can not
see any counter argument that would not equally apply to the
current DbC state.
Except for the fact, that someone has to implement it.
