version(noboundscheck) + friends

[Timothee Cour]

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 <jmdavisProg at gmx.com>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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.puremagic.com/pipermail/digitalmars-d-learn/attachments/20130603/21193b5e/attachment.html>