I know Walter has said repeatedly that at this point the program is invalid, Implying that it deserves whatever happens to it. I suspect this is a subtopic we should be discussing more directly. What are the boundaries?
Suppose I call some logging function which has a faulty assertion
in it. What about Walter's position prevents that assertion's
effects from escaping the logging function and infecting my code?
I know cross-module optimization is hard hence this may be
unlikely, but still it shows something missing.
- Re: checkedint call removal Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Chris Cain via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Chris Cain via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Daniel Gibson via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Chris Cain via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Chris Cain via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Tobias Pankrath via Digitalmars-d
- Re: checkedint call removal Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d