An alternative to .init

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

downs wrote:
> For numbers, it should probably be "the same as .init". Not every
> error condition can be detected, sadly.

That further dillutes the benefits of T.fail.

> It would also be nice if a .fail value could be provided as an
> extension to typedef somehow .. user defined types will probably have
> their own possible failure indicators.

That further increases the cognitive cost of T.fail.

Not putting you down. I think the notion is good, but I think we need to 
thoroughly understand its costs and benefits before even raising it to 
Walter's level of consciousness :o).


Andrei