Time to move std.experimental.checkedint to std.checkedint ?

[tsbockman]

On Saturday, 27 March 2021 at 21:02:39 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
> Are you familiar with how Zig handles overflow [1]? They error 
> on overflow by default, but they have additional functions and 
> operators to handle when you want to do wraparound.

Thanks for the link; I hadn't seen Zig's take before. It agrees 
with my conclusions from developing checkedint: assume the user 
wants normal integer math by default, signal an error somehow 
when it fails, and wrap overflow only when this is explicitly 
requested.

It's not just about reliability vs. performance, it is about 
making the intended semantics of the code clear:

0) Is overflow wrapped on purpose?
1) Did the programmer somehow prove that overflow cannot occur 
for all valid inputs?
2) Was the programmer desperate enough for speed to knowingly 
write incorrect code?
3) Was the programmer simply ignorant or forgetful of this 
problem?
4) Did the programmer willfully ignore overflow because it is 
"not the cause of enough problems to be that concerning"?

Most code written in C/D/etc. leaves the answer to this question 
a mystery for the reader to puzzle out. In contrast, code written 
using a system like Zig's is far less likely to confuse or 
mislead the reader.

> Nevertheless, I agree that the ship has sailed for D2 on this.

Yes.

> [1] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/#Integer-Overflow