4 ms·

I agree with your point, but note that Rust does have an ugly way to do it: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i64.html#method.wrapping_add https://doc.ru

by xscott 3y ago

I agree with your point, but note that Rust does have an ugly way to do it: https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i64.html#method.wrapping_add https://doc.rust-lang.org/std/primitive.i64.html#method.wrap... I'd rather just put `-fwrapv` on the command line that clutter my code with crap like that though.

nicoburns 3y ago
> I'd rather just put `-fwrapv` on the command line that clutter my code with crap like that though. The advantage of Rust's way is that it lets you customise addition on a per-operation basis. So you can mix and match wrapping addition with saturating addition, etc.
- xscott 3y ago
  Yes, I can have functions/methods that do math differently from the default. I could just as easily say that's C's way and mix and match those: int64_t x = add_i64_with_abort_on_debug_and_wrap_on_release(y, z); uint8_t t = add_u8_with_saturation(u, v); I'd prefer the default for the math operators be what all the CPUs currently do, and neither C or Rust promises that.