Dear Thiago Macieira,

Thank you for your valuable input and perspectives on the proposal for the "silent_at" method. I appreciate the opportunity to engage in a meaningful discussion on this topic. I would like to address your points and provide a counterargument for further consideration:

The main objective of the "silent_at" method is to cater to individuals who prioritize specific safety requirements without incurring unnecessary costs. This approach aligns with the principle of "pay for what you use" and adheres to the zero-overhead principle. By avoiding the printing of information during bounds checking, the "silent_at" method aims to prevent any violations of the zero-overhead principle and ensures that users only incur the desired safety features without additional overhead.

Your argument regarding changing existing code with a new implementation raises an important concern. The presence of at() and operator[] already creates dialects in the codebase. However, it's worth noting that the widespread use of the -fno-exceptions flag in the C++ community prevents the utilization of the at() method altogether. This limitation further reinforces the need for an alternative method, such as "silent_at," that caters to users who cannot rely on exceptions in their codebase due to compile-time configurations.

I hope these points provide a compelling counterargument and further contribute to the discussion. I appreciate your perspectives and the opportunity to engage in a constructive dialogue on this topic.

If you have any additional thoughts or insights to share, please don't hesitate to let me know.

Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows