Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
This is a different beast. We simply couldn't devise a satisfactory
scheme within the constraints we have. No simple solution we could think
of has worked, nor have a number of sophisticated solutions. Ideas would
be welcome, though I need to warn you that the devil is in the details
so the ideas must be fully baked; too many good sounding high-level
ideas fail when analyzed in detail.
I assume then that you've looked at something lke C#'s checked/unchecked
scheme and someone's (I forget who) idea of expanding that to something
like unchecked(overflow, sign)? What was wrong with those sorts of
things?
An unchecked-based approach was not on the table. Our focus was more on
checking things properly, instead of over-checking and then relying on
"unchecked" to disable that.
C#'s scheme supports the opposite as well. Not checking for the stuff where
you mostly don't care, and then "checked" to enable the checks in the spots
where you do care. And then there's been the suggestions for finer-graned
control for whevever that's needed.
Well unfortunately that all wasn't considered. If properly championed,
it would. I personally consider the current approach superior because
it's safe and unobtrusive.
Andrei
