size_t index=-1;

[tsbockman via Digitalmars-d-learn]

On Tuesday, 22 March 2016 at 00:18:54 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On 3/21/16 7:43 PM, tsbockman wrote:
>> The false positive rate would certainly be *much* lower than 
>> your
>> outlandish 10,000 : 1 estimate, given a good compiler 
>> implementation.
>
> I wouldn't say it's outlandish given my understanding of the 
> problem. The question is, does the pain justify the update? I 
> haven't run it against my code or any code really, but I can 
> see how someone is very good at making correct uses of the 
> implicit conversion.

Well that's the real problem here then, isn't it?

I wouldn't want this stuff "fixed" either, if I thought false 
positives would outnumber useful warnings by 10,000 : 1.

However, I already *know* that's not the case, from my own tests. 
But at this point I'm obviously not going to convince you, except 
by compiling some concrete statistics on what got flagged in some 
real code bases.

And this I plan to do (in some form or other), once `checkedint` 
and/or the fix for DMD issue 259 are really ready. People can 
make an informed decision about the trade-offs then.