checkedint call removal

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 7/30/14, 3:06 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 07/30/2014 10:55 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 7/30/14, 11:31 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>> On 07/30/2014 07:56 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>>>> On 7/30/14, 9:31 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> 'lazy', which denotes pass by name instead of pass by need.
>>>>
>>>> It's not pass by name.
>>>> ...
>>>
>>> How so? Is it about failure to allocate a closure?
>>
>> void fun(lazy int a) { ... }
>> int x = 42;
>> fun(x + 2);
>>
>> "x + 2" doesn't have a name.
>> ...
>
> You might just have been fooled by the name of a concept.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation_strategy#Call_by_name

Oh, yah. I'd forgotten. Mea culpa. Thanks!

>>>> Consider this: after considerable effort you are failing to explain
>>>> your
>>>> case for "assume" to the language creators.
>>>
>>> I think there was no such case (yet), only an unsuccessful attempt to
>>> clear up a misunderstanding based on terminology.
>>
>> My perception is you were arguing for a very subtle distinction,
>
> My perception is different. Why is this distinction so subtle?

Because it created a long thread in which there's little agreement.

>> one that would hardly deserve a language feature.
>> ...
>
> version(assert) is a slight generalisation of such a language feature
> and it is already there. I already noted how the distinction can be
> implemented approximately in current D, in fact I think this was my
> first action in this thread.
>
> version(assert) assert(...); // assert without effects on -release code
> generation.

Maybe this is a misundersanding. version(assert) does not mean "assert 
is considered here, else it's completely ignored". It means "assert will 
effect a run-time check".



Andrei