Let Go, Standard Library From Community

[Stephen Waits]

Derek Parnell wrote:
>   return x >= 0 ? x : -x;

Or, if we're going to get that picky, and you want to prefer +0 over -0, 
then you can also eliminate the equality test.

   return x < 0 ? -x : x;

I agree with you.. portability is preferred here, considering the 
non-existent performance difference.

I'd even go as far as saying that using bit twiddling in this specific 
case is the "junior mistake".

Why?  Because it assumes that the compiler isn't already taking care of 
this for you.

In C++, my gcc4 already optimizes both -x and x *= -1 into optimal code, 
similar to the bit-twiddling Dan suggested.  I have to assume we can get 
the same under D, whether it exists today or not.

--Steve