Time to move std.experimental.checkedint to std.checkedint ?

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/31/21 12:32 AM, tsbockman wrote:
> On Wednesday, 31 March 2021 at 03:32:40 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 3/30/21 7:01 PM, tsbockman wrote:
>>> Simply flipping compiler switches (the -ftrapv and -fwrapv flags in 
>>> gcc Andrei mentioned earlier) won't work, because most high 
>>> performance code contains some deliberate and correct examples of 
>>> wrapping overflow, signed-unsigned reinterpretation, etc.
>>>
>>> Idiomatic Zig code (probably Ada, too) does contain this information. 
>>> But, the selection of "real world" open source Zig code available for 
>>> testing is limited right now, since Zig hasn't stabilized the 
>>> language or the standard library yet.
>>
>> That's awfully close to "No true Scotsman".
> 
> Just tossing out names of fallacies isn't really very helpful if you 
> don't explain why you think it may apply here.

I thought it's fairly clear - the claim is non-falsifiable: if code is 
faster without checks, it is deemed so on account of tricks. Code 
without checks could benefit of other, better tricks, but their absence 
is explained by the small size of the available corpus.