checkedint call removal

[Ary Borenszweig via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/30/14, 2:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 7/30/14, 9:31 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> On 07/30/2014 05:04 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>> On 7/30/14, 4:56 AM, Daniel Murphy wrote:
>>>> "Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d"  wrote in message
>>>> news:mailman.217.1406713015.16021.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>>>>
>>>>> `assert` is for *verifying* assumptions. It must not allow them
>>>>> to leak/escape. Otherwise a single not-100%-correct assert could
>>>>> defeat critical runtime checks.
>>>>
>>>> All you're saying is you want them to have different names, not that it
>>>> can't work the way Walter and I have described.  If your assertions are
>>>> invalid and you're compiling with -release, the compiler is free to
>>>> generate invalid code.  -release is dangerous.  -release is telling the
>>>> compiler that the code you wrote is correct,  and it can rely on it to
>>>> be correct.
>>>
>>> Exactly! -- Andrei
>>
>> This just moves the issue around and gives another term a non-obvious
>> meaning (the 'release' switch, which is not called e.g.
>> 'unsafeAssumeCorrect'.
>
> Well to me "-release" is "I assume my program is correct, generate the
> fastest code for it".

I tried the program in debug mode in thousands of ways and apparently no 
assert triggers. So I'll just compile in release mode, release it and 
let anyone find bugs in it and allow to bypass any security or safety I 
put in my program with those "assert" statmenets, that would probably 
just take 1 nanosecond to execute anyway.

Sounds really nice.

(sorry for the sarcasm, removing assert is wrong to me)