dmd 1.046 and 2.031 releases

[Andrei Alexandrescu]

Nick Sabalausky wrote:
> "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. 

Well unfortunately that all wasn't considered. If properly championed, 
it would. I personally consider the current approach superior because 
it's safe and unobtrusive.

Andrei