On Mon, 04 Jul 2011 14:49:03 -0400, eles <e...@eles.com> wrote:
I have an idea - how about the notation Uncircular!uint to designate
such a type?
Andrei
Either put it into the standard language, either I have a better one.
what about dropping printf and start using:
mov ah, 9
int 0x21
instead?
I am sure it can be done. So, why not dropping all D and start to
code back into assembler?
I think that's a really good idea. I'm sure there's a great assembly
newsgroup or forum where you can post your ideas and mock the D community
for the bunch of boobs that we are.
The point is that "it can be done even if the current context" is a
shallow excuse for rejecting better ways to achieve something.
I think the rejection is for the assumption of superiority. I.e. your way
isn't better, or even possible, given the existing code base.
To the point -- lots of existing D and C code uses the properties of
integer overflow. If integer overflow is assumed to be an error, then
that code is broken, even though the code *expects* overflow to occur, and
in fact might *depend* on it occurring.
A more logical path is to build a new type, that's not in any existing
code base, which handles overflow using exceptions. Then a developer can
choose to use this new type if he wants to throw an exception on
overflow. If this is not acceptable to you, I suggest you drop it anyways
-- altering the builtin types is not going to happen. Ever.
-Steve
