You can add me to the list of horrified people :) I'd prefer overflow to something one opts into for small portions of their code, much like unsafe blocks. On Dec 20, 2012 7:26 PM, "Graydon Hoare" <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 12-12-20 11:17 AM, Niko Matsakis wrote: > > This makes sense. What I really meant was: Let's not try to do this > > checking during the type check itself, as we initially did, but rather > > as a later lint step. This also allows you to disable it if you know > > what you're doing and for some reason the code is cleaner as you wrote > it. > > Agreed. It's fine for a lint pass outside the type checker, I just want > the semantics clearly defined in terms of a class of constant expressions. > > (We'll also probably need or want some more general overflow-checking > attributes anyways. I've had at least 3 people react in horror when I > told them that while divide-by-zero is trapped, integer-overflow _isn't_ > trapped by default in my nice "safe language" :) > > -Graydon > > _______________________________________________ > Rust-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
