A little story

[Tobias Pankrath]

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?

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.