checkedint call removal

[Timon Gehr via Digitalmars-d]

( Source: http://www.chris.com/ascii/index.php?art=objects/explosives )

On 08/02/2014 12:26 AM, Chris Cain wrote:
> On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 22:17:15 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> "contradictory assertions"
>>
>> "To what degree of certitude must the assertion be supported?"
>>
>> etc.
>>
>> I'll not go into more details because I actually intend not to
>> participate again in heated debate after already having shown strong
>> evidence.
>
> Frankly, I don't understand the point you're trying to make, so it's not
> really possible to rebut it.
>
> If your point is that assertions need to have evidence to be assertions,
> an easy counterproof of this is in your own quote: "To what degree of
> certitude must the assertion be supported?" ... It wouldn't have been
> called an assertion in that sentence unless it's something that is sure
> that it had been supported sufficiently (it would have been worded more
> along the lines of "To what degree of certitude must the assertion
> *candidate* be supported?")
> ...

Look, this is a really poor piece of logical reasoning, and for today I 
am expressedly fed up with arguing against obvious non sequiturs and 
immediately summoning new ones. In any case, my easy way out is to note 
that this is not my assertion.

To be really clear: My assertion was:

It is not true that anyone who accepts the "assertion definition" as the 
single conclusive way to give meaning to the term 'assert' will be able 
to use it to distinguish the meaning given to it by Walter and the other 
meaning under discussion, given to it by other notable people, in such a 
way as to find the former sensible and the latter nonsensical.

Sigh, I got involved again.

> I think it's clear that the definition of assertion being "statement of
> fact or belief" is compatible with the usage in that wikipedia article.
> ...

Yes. Please go back and read the relevant posts, find out what they 
assert and agree with them or argue against an assertion that was 
actually made. I have seen assertions such as: "the definition of the 
word really makes it obvious what the feature was originally intended to 
convey."

> In particular, "contradictory 'statements of fact'"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fact

> [...]  actually make perfect sense.

Contradictory facts make perfect sense. Contradictory facts make no 
sense at all. Those two assertions expressed facts, unless this third 
assertion is wrong. The next assertion is wrong. The preceding 
assertions are statements of fact.

static if(!is(typeof(x))) int x;

...
      ...
          .
           .
            .


                              ____
                      __,-~~/~    `---.
                    _/_,---(      ,    )
                __ /        <    /   )  \___
- ------===;;;'====------------------===;;;===----- -  -
                   \/  ~"~"~"~"~"~\~"~)~"/
                   (_ (   \  (     >    \)
                    \_( _ <         >_>'
                       ~ `-i' ::>|--"
                           I;|.|.|
                          <|i::|i|`.
                         (` ^'"`-' ")