Voting for std.experimental.checkedint

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

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:49:53 UTC, deadalnix wrote: > Is the doc available somewhere in a readable form ? CyberShadow/DAutoTest build the docs, you can find the link at the end of the PR under checks

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:39:38 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: > ... Overall, the code looks good and the design looks solid. However, I have no personal use for such a module, so I can't really comment on it's design with any authority. Abstain.

On Saturday, January 14, 2017 20:54:11 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: > On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:39:38 UTC, Robert burner Schadek > > wrote: > > ... > > Overall, the code looks good and the design looks solid. However, I have no personal use for such a module, so I can't really comment on it's design with any authority. > > Abstain. That's pretty much the boat I'm in, though I've never looked at it in depth. It's one of those things that a few folks seem to think is vital, but I have zero use for it. It's trying to solve a problem that I simply don't have. - Jonathan M Davis

On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 13:25:10 UTC, Robert burner Schadek wrote: > On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:49:53 UTC, deadalnix wrote: >> Is the doc available somewhere in a readable form ? > > CyberShadow/DAutoTest build the docs, you can find the link at the end of the PR under checks Readers trying to find that link on their phone should switch to the desktop version (link at the very bottom of the page.) However volatile, at the moment the docs are here: http://dtest.thecybershadow.net/artifact/website-f99d0fe6d09e288faf22f3eb515fc56e3c892179-48800882159648c96641690c7485b586/web/phobos-prerelease/std_experimental_checkedint.html Bastiaan.

On Monday, 16 January 2017 at 19:51:38 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote: > On Saturday, January 14, 2017 20:54:11 Jack Stouffer via Digitalmars-d wrote: >> On Friday, 13 January 2017 at 12:39:38 UTC, Robert burner Schadek >> >> wrote: >> > ... >> >> Overall, the code looks good and the design looks solid. However, I have no personal use for such a module, so I can't really comment on it's design with any authority. >> >> Abstain. > > That's pretty much the boat I'm in, though I've never looked at it in depth. It's one of those things that a few folks seem to think is vital, but I have zero use for it. It's trying to solve a problem that I simply don't have. > > - Jonathan M Davis Same here. Atila

On Fri, 13 Jan 2017 12:39:38 +0000, 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 Yes. Most of the time in my code, integer overflow is a bug. I want to defend myself against bugs. My new code will use checkedint by default (with some convenience aliases, and with regular integers as an option in the public interface). There are some minor documentation changes I would like; I have submitted a PR.

Alright some feedback. It is rather disappointing that Warn and Abort only write to stderr. Being able to specify the sink would be great. i may want to log the issue or something. There is option to throw on error. Checked!(Checked!(int, ProperCompare), WithNaN) is rather inelegent. Why not Checked!(int, ProperCompare, WithNaN) ? get() should not be inout. It returns a value type. const is fine. Otherwise, the overall design looks pretty solid. Congrats to you guys. Idealy, I'd like to see these things polished, but I'm rather pleased to see where this is going. I'd say yes, modulo the above.

Forums