problem with size_t and an easy solution

[Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d]

On Wednesday, 10 December 2014 at 02:15:04 UTC, ketmar via 
Digitalmars-d wrote:
> On Tue, 09 Dec 2014 17:28:15 +0000
> Ivan Kazmenko via Digitalmars-d <digitalmars-d at puremagic.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> A well-designed language allows to recover from errors with 
>> good probability
> if compiler can recover from error, it should not report the 
> error at
> all -- 'cause it can fix the code for me.
>
> that is absolutely nonsense, you *CAN'T* "recover" from invalid 
> code.
> that is the fact. fact: Earth is not a sphere. fact: you can't
> automatically recover from invalid code.

That sounds much like an opinion, a lot less like a fact.  If you 
are willing to convince people, please provide some evidence, 
aside from another unrelated fact.  If you guess the right 
recovery in, say, 99% of cases, few would care that it's 
theoretically impossible in the general case.

In my experience, I find multiple reported compile errors useful 
in a number of programming languages and compilers including D.  
It allows for somewhat faster error fixing than the 
first-error-only reporting strategy - seen that, too, back in the 
Borland Pascal MS-DOS IDE and few other compilers.  I won't trade 
the extra benefit just for philosophical notions.