On 24/06/14 01:17 AM, Jerry Morrison wrote:
>
> Does `checked { }` mean all functions within that scope use
> checked-integer arithmetic? This sounds great to me.
It would only apply to local operations. It's not possible to alter the
behaviour of functions in general because of crates. It would also be
incorrect if they required wrapping semantics.
> One detail: There should be a way to explicitly specify
> wraparound-arithmetic, e.g. wraparound-arithmetic operators. Lint would
> never complain about that.
I think the scope-based solution would probably be cleaner in that case:
#[checked]
fn foo() { ... }
#[unchecked]
fn bar() { #[checked] { ... } }
The lint would warn for operations in a scope without an explicit
decision one way or the other. You could even put `#[checked]` at module
/ crate level and override it in inner scopes.
I think that's as a sane solution, as opposed to introducing dialects
with compiler switches which I really dislike.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
