> getting the compiler to prove for you that every bounds check can be safely elided? I'd prefer to delegate that where compiler if it can do that for that pie

> getting the compiler to prove for you that every bounds check can be safely elided? I'd prefer to delegate that where compiler if it can do that for that piece of code at hand. I've written about a case where it'd be very hard for a compiler to eliminate a bounds check because the guarantees are made elsewhere in the code. On the other hand, I'd rather add my bounds check voluntarily (it's very simple in C++ vectors for example. use ".at()" instead of "[]", that's all), because I generally design my code in a way which doesn't need bounds checks by failing hard and early at places where I build/fill the arrays/vectors and prone to malformation. So, you need to be well-formed to pass these checks, and these data structures are not modified ever down the pipe. If they are modified, they'll be bound checked of course. What I'm saying is, I'm not naive enough to believe that I'm perfect, but I'm not naive enough to believe that compiler is perfect, either. So, I do my part, and leave the parts I can't be sure to the compiler. I'm not an hard-liner. I just want finer control on my code, and take full responsibility if it crashes and burns in a way it shouldn't, so plan and implement accordingly.