Looping Assertions

Compile with `--assertions:off --overflowChecks:off`. The array bounds checks can sometimes be optimized out by the C(++) backend.

Looping Assertions

Not true, they are only turned off in danger mode. Maybe you can define your own iterator that does `push checks: off` for the element access.

Looping Assertions

> But it'll then perform a bound check at the beginning of each loop, and a > overflow check at each end, which is no more efficient than assertions, and > still needed to be turned off. Bound checking and most assertions are turned off in release mode

Looping Assertions

> But it'll then perform a bound check at the beginning of each loop, and a > overflow check at each end, which is no more efficient than assertions, and > still needed to be turned off. Bound checking and most assertions are turned off in release mode

Looping Assertions

Seq with unchangeable length can be implemented as `type FixedSeq[T] = distinct seq[T]` with only certain overloads allowed, like `[]=` but not `add`

Looping Assertions

Oh I see. Even if loop though `items`, boundary and overflow checks still exist. But I still want alt `seq` with unchangable length. Arrays do have fixed length, but must be determined at compile-time.

Looping Assertions

> Iterate over the loop using indices instead of an iterator But it'll then perform a bound check at the beginning of each loop, and a overflow check at each end, which is no more efficient than assertions, and still needed to be turned off.

Looping Assertions

Recently I discovered that Nim can insert assertions at the end of each loop, to ensure that the length of the `seq` is unchanged, so I decided to put a `{.push assertions: off.}` to the top of each loop. My question is, is there a simpiler way to do this, except by turning off assertions global

Looping Assertions

Iterate over the loop using indices instead of an iterator. And assertions are not "insered at the end of the loop" they are part of `items` iterator.