std.experimental.checkedint is ready for comments!

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d]

On Tuesday, 14 June 2016 at 10:39:01 UTC, Nordlöw wrote:
> Have you thought about extending checkedint to something 
> similar to bounded integer wrapper type like my `bound.d`?

I spent some time studying the possibility of a `BoundInt` type. 
Some conclusions I reached:

    1) Designing and implementing `BoundInt` to my standards for 
quality and
       performance would be a large project of similar magnitude 
to what has
       already been done on `checkedint`, which took me about a 
year. (And I
       was building on the earlier work of @burner and others.)

    2) `BoundInt` is not a replacement for `SafeInt` or 
`SmartInt`, although
       they would likely share some parts of the implementation.

    3) Adding `BoundInt` later should not require any breaking 
changes to the
       public API of `checkedint`.

    4) Pervasive, natural use of `BoundInt` in large systems (like 
Phobos)
       may cause *awful* template bloat issues, depending on the 
design used.
       (Improvements to the compiler front-end could mitigate this 
issue, in
       the long run.)

Given the above, I believe we should move forward with 
`checkedint` as-is. Someone can add a `BoundInt` type to it 
later, if there is demand.