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

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

On 3/31/21 12:47 AM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> 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.


s/Code without checks could benefit of other/Code with checks could 
benefit of other/