checkedint call removal

[Chris Cain via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 07:36:34 UTC, Tofu Ninja wrote:
> ...

Look, this is the point I'm trying to make. Given the English 
definition of assert (Just accept the definition, I'm tired: 
"statement of fact or belief confidently and forcefully"), I 
claim that it makes sense that a compiler will use your statement 
of fact to do something meaningful. The assert defined in this 
topic by Walter certainly aligns with what *I* would expect the 
compiler to do, given a statement of fact. Yes, whatever you said 
may be true or may not be true. Just like anything else, though, 
if you're wrong, your program will be buggy. Such is life of a 
programmer.

I find the concept of not doing anything meaningful with an 
assert to be strange. I find the idea of confusing "checking" 
with "asserting" to also be pretty weird (only after this topic, 
to be fair). Given the English definition of assert, it seems 
strange that I ever believed it should work the way I 
conceptualized it before. But oh well. That's all I really wanted 
to say, I'm really tired of words and throwing things around and 
confusing something so simple and trivial. Simple things should 
stay simple. Complexity hides incorrect logic.

To simplify: When I tell the compiler to do something, it does 
it. Thus, if I give a compiler a statement of fact, it should use 
that information. There should be no special case between those 
two. Yeah whatever, compile errors, come on man, stop missing the 
simple and obvious point. Stop missing the forest for the grain 
of dirt.