d-programming-language.org

[bearophile]

Steven Schveighoffer:

> To the point -- lots of existing D and C code uses the properties of  
> integer overflow.  If integer overflow is assumed to be an error, then  
> that code is broken, even though the code *expects* overflow to occur, and  
> in fact might *depend* on it occurring.

In this case you wrap the code in something that allows it to overflow without errors, like:

unsafe(overflows) {
    // code here
}

------------------------

Andrei:

>This and others (zero- vs. one-based indexing, closed vs. open intervals etc.) are issues with well-understood tradeoffs that could go either way.<

Integral overflows are not the same thing as indexing and intervals. Such last two are equal ways to write the same thing, while overflows are a way to spot a class of bugs in code.


>Making a choice in such matters becomes part of a language's ethos.<

Right, and I think D Zen is pro-safety.


>After a while it becomes clear that rehashing such matters without qualitatively new arguments is futile.<

I have answered because you have said wrong things. You have implicitly said that good overflow tests are doable with library code, and I have explained why you are wrong. This isn't futile.

Bye,
bearophile