• Kagamin <spam here.lot> Nov 26 2008
• Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> Nov 26 2008
• bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> Nov 26 2008

Kagamin <spam here.lot> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:

 I also know seasoned programmers who had 
 no idea that -u compiles and that it also oddly returns an unsigned type.


2) I doubt this proposal solves the danger, wheatever it is.
3) -u is funny and looks like wrong desing to me.
4) Did you want C# checked computations?

Andrei Alexandrescu <SeeWebsiteForEmail erdani.org> writes:

Kagamin wrote:
 Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
 
 I also know seasoned programmers who had 
 no idea that -u compiles and that it also oddly returns an unsigned type.


 2) I doubt this proposal solves the danger, wheatever it is.
 3) -u is funny and looks like wrong desing to me.
 4) Did you want C# checked computations?


I didn't want runtime checks inserted, just to tighten compilation rules.

Andrei

bearophile <bearophileHUGS lycos.com> writes:

Andrei Alexandrescu:
 I didn't want runtime checks inserted, just to tighten compilation rules.


The compiler may use both :-)

Bye,
bearophile