Path: csiph.com!x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder4.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: markspace <-@.>
Newsgroups: comp.lang.java.programmer
Subject: Re: Arithmetic overflow checking
Date: Sat, 09 Jul 2011 07:46:45 -0700
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 29
Message-ID: <iv9pkr$lj6$1@dont-email.me>
References: <015aeb15-57db-48ab-9cd4-77f8448b632f@w24g2000yqw.googlegroups.com> <2rydnez7l-H5BYnTnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@earthlink.com> <CpmdnZ2c6KsSI4jTnZ2dnUVZ_jydnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> <wZCdnWNqDO0pe4jTnZ2dnUVZ_v2dnZ2d@earthlink.com> <9LWdnZH2hdfmyYvTnZ2dnUVZ_vidnZ2d@posted.palinacquisition> <pPqdnbD2qr5G7ovTnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@earthlink.com> <alpine.DEB.2.00.1107091027140.32399@urchin.earth.li> <a2937db9-36f9-420b-8f36-e651b52373ad@h8g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Sat, 9 Jul 2011 14:46:51 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="5HSAJfqnDjjLFxXZ6WBWEw"; logging-data="22118"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX18NUdMJA+Tctv0BdOeqORcSSMOLQiBfjfk="
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 6.1; en-US; rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110616 Thunderbird/3.1.11
In-Reply-To: <a2937db9-36f9-420b-8f36-e651b52373ad@h8g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>
Cancel-Lock: sha1:7UoMkc3vCiDbVF5csdRZDrjBJlw=
Xref: x330-a1.tempe.blueboxinc.net comp.lang.java.programmer:6018

On 7/9/2011 2:58 AM, rop rop wrote:
> I also think not, in the general case...
> But you could also have an annotation argument, like
>
> @CheckForOverflow(allTheWayDown=true)
> or
> @CheckForOverflow(allTheWayDown=false)


I did a quick check of the C# variant when it was mentioned here, and 
this is how they do it:

   int result = checked( a + b - c );

In other words is a key word.  Since Java can't really do this easily, 
I'd be in favor of using an existing key word and extending it.  For 
example, the key word "try" can't ever appear currently as a class name 
or package name in any program, so we could do this:

   int result = try.checked( a + b - c );

Which at least makes sense to me as one reads the code;  i.e., it's 
literate programming.  One could, I suppose, also extend the syntax 
where an annotation can be used, but this might have side effects also. 
  For example, it might be hard to support these new user defined 
annotations in the general case.