Integer overflows

[superdan]

Nick Sabalausky Wrote:

> "superdan" <super at dan.org> wrote in message 
> news:g4r88k$qjj$1 at digitalmars.com...
> > bearophile Wrote:
> >
> >> A short article from July 01, 2008, shows that some people are 
> >> re-inventing the integer overflows compiler check that Pascal/Delphi 
> >> programmers have enjoyed for lot of years:
> >>
> >> http://www.ddj.com/hpc-high-performance-computing/208801981
> >>
> >> This time I am happy that history is repeating itself.
> >
> > me 2 but the article is just a rant. we should demand this from languages 
> > and computers. well yeah i demand a cow with diet coke too.
> >
> > i was always unclear on somethin'. should the check be in the operation or 
> > the type of the operand? i mean maybe i have some data and only sometimes 
> > i want to make sure there's no overflow. so i'm sayin'
> >
> > int a, b, c;
> > a = b _+_ c;
> >
> > or something. that _+_ is checked and shit. or should i be like
> >
> > Safe!(int) a, b, c;
> > a = b + c;
> >
> > arguments could go both ways i guess. the advantage of the albeit uglier 
> > first solution is that it is more likely to be used. somehow safe types 
> > keep on comin' in languages but people don't use'em if thery're not the 
> > default. positive bias i suppose. (ppl underestimate the likelihood of bad 
> > shit happening to'em and overestimate their capacity to avoid bad shit 
> > when it is imminent.)
> 
> C# has a nice solution that involves (I think this is what they're named:) 
> "checked" and "unchecked" keywords.  (Heh heh, yes, here I go praising 
> something in C# again. I really do like D better overall, honest! (Of 
> course, D is helped by the fact that C#'s templates are effectively gimped - 
> just look up the whole "no IArithmetic" bizzareness. Anyway...))
> 
> The way it works is this:
> In the compiler settings, you can choose a default, either artithmetic is 
> checked for overflows by default or not checked by default.  Then, in the 
> code, you can override the compiler setting by doing something like this:
> 
> checked
> {
>  // Code here
> }
> 
> unchecked
> {
>  // Code here
> }
> 
> a = checked(b + c);
> a = unchecked(b + c); 
> 
> 

does that checked stuff see through function calls?