against enforce

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Sat, 26 Mar 2011 08:14:19 -0400, Kagamin <spam at here.lot> wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
>
>> For example, if I do:
>>
>> sqrt(1);
>>
>> There is never ever a need to test this in production code.  sqrt(1) is
>> always 1, and will always work.
>>
>> If I do:
>>
>> sqrt(-1);
>>
>
> pure function called on literals is evaluatable at compile time together  
> with checks, so if sqrt run at runtime, this means input couldn't be  
> validated that easily, so checks should be run too. This means that it's  
> unnecessary to ever remove checks from sqrt.

It's not that simple.

for example:

sqrt(uniform(1.0, 2000.0));

This is completely safe, and needs no runtime error checks.

It's easier to explain with simple examples, knowing that you can  
extrapolate more complex ones that the compiler can't "prove".

-Steve