On 25-Jun-12 15:21, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
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?
I surely can do s/int/Integer/.
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.
--
Dmitry Olshansky
