On Tuesday, 17 January 2017 at 11:53:16 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
>
> Same here.
>
> Atila

No interest either. Have zilch problems with integers.

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:39:38 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> This is the voting thread to decide if the proposed addition to Phobos, std.experimental.checkedint, should be accepted.
>
> To vote, please respond to this post. You have three options:
>
> * Yes
> * Yes with a single condition
> * No
>
> If you vote "yes" you can still mention something you'd like improved, but please be explicit if that problem is a non starter for you and you are choosing option two. If you vote no, please state why, though you aren't required to.
>
> Some things to consider when making a vote:
>
> * Is this functionality needed in Phobos?
> * The API is practically permanent once the module is accepted. Some minor changes can be made, but a full redesign is no longer an option.
>
> The voting will end 2017-01-31
>
> The PR can be found here:
> https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/4613
>
> The dub package can be found here:
> http://code.dlang.org/packages/checkedint_andralex
>
> The review thread can be found here:
> http://forum.dlang.org/post/mnounbaobgphbmanfaks@forum.dlang.org

Yes, with the comment that this would probably be better as a Dub package, at least for the time being. If std.experimental didn't exist I would say no outright.

checkedint got voted in. With 2 Yes and 2 yes with remarks.

I will set the autotester to merge.

Thank you @andralex for the hard work.

On 2/24/17 4:20 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
> checkedint got voted in. With 2 Yes and 2 yes with remarks.
>

Remarkably unpopular vote we have here.
If I read it right it implies that
nobody cares for checked integers.

> I will set the autotester to merge.
>
> Thank you @andralex for the hard work.

---
Dmitry Olshansky

On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 20:37:28 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> If I read it right it implies that nobody cares for checked integers.

I guess you can say I don't personally care about them because I have no personal use case for them. But, as I said in my remarks, I understand why we should have them. Time will tell from users if this solution is workable.

On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 20:37:28 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 2/24/17 4:20 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>> checkedint got voted in. With 2 Yes and 2 yes with remarks.
>>
>
> Remarkably unpopular vote we have here.
> If I read it right it implies that
> nobody cares for checked integers.

It is more useful as a compiler switch, a type won't help when you call into third party libraries.

On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 20:37:28 UTC, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
> On 2/24/17 4:20 PM, Robert burner Schadek wrote:
>> checkedint got voted in. With 2 Yes and 2 yes with remarks.
>>
>
> Remarkably unpopular vote we have here.
> If I read it right it implies that
> nobody cares for checked integers.
>

A lot of bloat code for something extremely basic.

Newbie asks: How do I check for integer overflow in D?
Response: http://dtest.thecybershadow.net/artifact/website-f99d0fe6d09e288faf22f3eb515fc56e3c892179-48800882159648c96641690c7485b586/web/phobos-prerelease/std_experimental_checkedint.html

* newbie runs scared.

My 2 cents.

On 02/25/2017 10:17 AM, rumbu wrote:
> A lot of bloat code for something extremely basic.

If you can do it with less code, I'm all ears. Thanks! -- Andrei

On Saturday, 25 February 2017 at 15:21:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> On 02/25/2017 10:17 AM, rumbu wrote:
>> A lot of bloat code for something extremely basic.
>
> If you can do it with less code, I'm all ears. Thanks! -- Andrei

Perhaps a simpler example for the most basic use case could be added near the top. In the heat of solving a problem, encountering two pages of theory and explanation for something the usage of which should be simple might be discouraging.

Basically, something like:

writeln((checked(5) + 7).get); // 12
writeln((checked(10) * 1000 * 1000 * 1000).get); // Overflow on binary operator

On 2/25/17 11:00 AM, Vladimir Panteleev wrote:
> On Saturday, 25 February 2017 at 15:21:10 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 02/25/2017 10:17 AM, rumbu wrote:
>>> A lot of bloat code for something extremely basic.
>>
>> If you can do it with less code, I'm all ears. Thanks! -- Andrei
>
> Perhaps a simpler example for the most basic use case could be added
> near the top. In the heat of solving a problem, encountering two pages
> of theory and explanation for something the usage of which should be
> simple might be discouraging.
>
> Basically, something like:
>
> writeln((checked(5) + 7).get); // 12
> writeln((checked(10) * 1000 * 1000 * 1000).get); // Overflow on binary
> operator

OK, let's do this:

https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5192
https://github.com/dlang/phobos/pull/5195


Thanks,

Andrei