A) whether the logic is done in compiler or druntime shouldn't matter to user, so it'd be nice to use as uniform syntax as possible, ie: dmd -version=noboundscheck should be supported (in addition to existing -noboundscheck) Implementation can then use that version flag to set compiler flag -noboundscheck.
B) noboundscheck can be used in library code as well for similar bounds checking semantics: for example, checking index bounds inside a user defined opIndex method. Hence distinguishing between compiler flag vs version flag doesn't make that much sense. C) It was introduced here: https://github.com/D-Programming-Language/dlang.org/commit/a4e2aa3ef7e4a6eec1c726ac9492221507cacfcf#version.dd by @alexrp. Since it wasn't in any change log, it's recent and makes sense, can we start a deprecation path to have D_NoBoundsChecks => noboundscheck ? On Mon, Jun 3, 2013 at 5:46 PM, Jonathan M Davis <[email protected]>wrote: > On Monday, June 03, 2013 16:49:29 Timothee Cour wrote: > > I meant 'why not have version(noboundscheck) instead of > > version(D_NoBoundsChecks)' > > of course. > > So, you're complaining about the name of the version identifier? I thought > that > you were complaining that we were using a flag instead a version > identifier to > turn on noboundscheck. > > I don't know why that name was chosen or even who chose it. If you look at > the > list of official identifiers, you can see that it's pretty arbitrary as to > what > the exact naming scheme is. Not even the casing is consistent. So, I expect > that D_NoBoundsCheck was chosen simply because whoever picked it thought > that > it best followed the generally naming scheme, or they just preferred that > name. As it stands, there's really no hope of being able to figure out > what any > of the official version identifiers are without looking them up and > memorizing > them - including the spelling and whatever other naming quirks that > particular > identifier may have. And unfortunately, there's no way that that's going > to be > fixed at this point due to code breakage that it would cause. > > You might be able to get D_NoBoundsChecks changed given how new it is, but > I > don't know. > > - Jonathan M Davis >
