dmd 1.046 and 2.031 releases

[Nick Sabalausky]

"Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
news:h30907$2lk0$3 at digitalmars.com...
> Nick Sabalausky wrote:
>> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <SeeWebsiteForEmail at erdani.org> wrote in message 
>> news:h2vprn$1t77$1 at digitalmars.com...
>>> This is a different beast. We simply couldn't devise a satisfactory 
>>> scheme within the constraints we have. No simple solution we could think 
>>> of has worked, nor have a number of sophisticated solutions. Ideas would 
>>> be welcome, though I need to warn you that the devil is in the details 
>>> so the ideas must be fully baked; too many good sounding high-level 
>>> ideas fail when analyzed in detail.
>>>
>>
>> I assume then that you've looked at something lke C#'s checked/unchecked 
>> scheme and someone's (I forget who) idea of expanding that to something 
>> like unchecked(overflow, sign)? What was wrong with those sorts of 
>> things?
>
> An unchecked-based approach was not on the table. Our focus was more on 
> checking things properly, instead of over-checking and then relying on 
> "unchecked" to disable that.
>

C#'s scheme supports the opposite as well. Not checking for the stuff where 
you mostly don't care, and then "checked" to enable the checks in the spots 
where you do care. And then there's been the suggestions for finer-graned 
control for whevever that's needed.