checkedint call removal

[Andrew Godfrey via Digitalmars-d]

On Sunday, 3 August 2014 at 15:06:56 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/2/2014 1:06 PM, Artur Skawina via Digitalmars-d wrote:
>> There's nothing wrong with `assume`, it's very useful for 
>> optimizations.
>> But it's too dangerous to tack `assume` onto `assert`. If they 
>> are kept
>> separate then it's at least possible to carefully audit every 
>> 'assume'.
>> People *will* use them for micro-optimizations, and they 
>> *will* make
>> mistakes.
>
> This seems contradictory. You say it is fine to have assume 
> affect optimization, i.e. insert bugs if the assumes are wrong,

Yes

> but not fine to check at runtime that the assumes are correct?

No, it would be fine for assume to do runtime checks on debug. 
I.e. The semantics you want assert to have, would be fine for 
assume. But I'd also expect assume to be used much more 
conservatively than assert. And the naming is much clearer this 
way.