On Fri, Jul 07, 2017 at 07:12:28PM -0600, Jonathan M Davis via Digitalmars-d-announce wrote: > On Friday, July 7, 2017 1:48:47 PM MDT Adam D. Ruppe via Digitalmars-d- > announce wrote: [...] > > The implicit slice is one of what I see as D's design flaws and > > brings up a number of problems. dip1000 and similar things might be > > able to fix the problems without changing the feature, but I won't > > be surprised if after a couple more years, we see that implicit > > slice get deprecated.
I'm also against implicit slicing of static arrays. It's just too dangerous, and also interacts poorly with template functions. > The trick is convincing Walter. The last time I brought it up with > him, he thought that improvements to @safe would fix the problem - and > they will help - but it interacts badly with templated code, and I > think that from a code clarity standpoint, the slicing needs to be > explicit. So, I'm of the opinion that implicit slicing should simply > be deprecated regardless of the state of @safe, but I don't know how > possible it is to convince Walter of that. Fixing the @safe issues is > at least a start though. [...] It's true that fixing @safe issues will at least reduce the problem surface of implicit slicing. But it's like bandaid over a festering wound; the problem is still there, it just lurks in more obscure corners now. T -- If the comments and the code disagree, it's likely that *both* are wrong. -- Christopher
