On Friday, 6 May 2016 at 09:31:08 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 5/6/16 11:06 AM, Dmitry Olshansky wrote:
On 06-May-2016 05:37, Jeremy DeHaan wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 May 2016 at 12:42:30 UTC, jmh530 wrote:
On Wednesday, 4 May 2016 at 02:50:08 UTC, Jeremy DeHaan
I'm not sure, but one would think that @safe code wouldn't
extra information about the union. I wouldn't know how to
differentiate between them though during runtime. Probably
with more experience with the compiler would know more
kind of thing.
You can identify safe functions with
All I meant was that I don't know enough about what the
with built in types to make this work. It almost sounds like
need a safe union and unsafe union type and do some extra
stuff for the
unsafe union, but I'm just starting to learn about this stuff.
I'd note that a union without pointers doesn't hurt precise
it's only the ones with pointers that are bad.
Ones that have only pointers are probably OK too. Though I'm
not sure if a precise scanner takes into account the type of
the pointer. I would expect it to use embedded typeinfo in
Because of void* and classes, the GC MUST be able to find out
what type was actually allocated, or at least its pointer bitmask.