checkedint call removal

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

On 08/02/2014 11:36 PM, Tobias Pankrath wrote:
> On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 21:25:40 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 20:27:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> Hmmm... code that fails assertions is hardly working. -- Andrei
>>
>> It is not the code that fails the assertion, it is the asserted
>> proposition that has not be satisfied by the axioms in the program as
>> it has been formulated in the context. It does not mean "can not be
>> satisfied", but "has not been satisfied".
>
> Don't you agree, that a program that throws AssertError in non -release*
> build is broken?
>...

According to you, what does it mean for a program to be 'broken'?

- Is being 'broken' a binary property or can there be different shades 
of 'broken'?

- Is it possible to break 'broken' software more than it was 'broken' 
already?

- Is it fine to break 'broken' software in this way?

- Should people be allowed to release 'broken' software? Are they?

- Can 'broken' software be useful?

- Would _you_ use software you know that is 'broken'?

etc. Maybe you find other questions you can answer to exemplify what 
'broken' is supposed to mean.