checkedint call removal

[Paolo Invernizzi via Digitalmars-d]

On Saturday, 2 August 2014 at 16:22:07 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 08/02/2014 06:03 PM, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> On Friday, 1 August 2014 at 18:33:34 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> On 8/1/2014 4:53 AM, Don wrote:
>>>> I think very strongly that we should rename the "-release" 
>>>> switch,
>>>> especially if
>>>> we do start to make use of asserts. It's going to cause no 
>>>> end of
>>>> confusion and
>>>> passionate debate.
>>>
>>> I would expect someone who spends more time developing code 
>>> with the
>>> compiler to spend at least a little effort reading the two 
>>> lines of
>>> documentation for -release and understanding that it disables 
>>> the
>>> runtime assert checks.
>>
>> +1
>>
>> I've the same reasoning every time I see big threads about 
>> installers: I
>> simply go with the zips for every platform I use D on.
>>
>> ---
>> Paolo
>
> 1. Note that the information about -release given in the above 
> post is misleading. The new -release assigns undefined 
> behaviour to failing assertions.
>
> 2. What has this thread to do with installers vs. zips?

Simple answer: also if I agree with Walter that the documentation 
can be improved, the consequence of the -release switch over the 
code base is crystal clear, it's no more that what it is written 
in the documentation.

We can passionately discuss on the philosophy of undefined 
behaviour, about the semantic meaning of the word 'assert', about 
using it for give the compiler hints about possible 
optimisations, and so on, but the discussion about renaming flags 
name does not passionate me, like discussions about simplifying 
the download expand a zip.

---
Paolo