Reply to Zoran,
BCS Wrote:
Reply to Zoran,
I don't think it is restrictive if the compiler prevented a
situation that would otherwise lead to a run-time error anyway, or
worse, weird and confusing run-time behavior. In my case, if the
compiler couldn't SAFELY handle a reference to the argument n
outside the enclosing function, then, IMO, RETURNING it (but not
otherwise using it) should be flagged a compilation error.
Admittedly, detecting this is a bit more involved for the compiler,
but not at all restrictive for the user.
D2.0 handles it all correctly. D1.0 follows the "hear is a gun, there
is your foot" mentality with regards to this. In general D is *not* a
safe language and that is by intent.
Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But
then, why would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*???
For that, we've got C and C++, don't we?)
In that (and only that) regards, D is closer to Ada than C++
http://adrianhoe.com/adrianhoe/2006/08/04/shooting-yourself-in-the-foot-a-humorous-approach-in-comparing-ada-to-other-programming-languages/
you can do it, it's just a bit had to do it on accident.
Does the "D is unsafe by intention" relate to D2.0, too?
D is intentionally not safe (vs. un-safe where the compiler requiter you
to install a foot shooter mechine and does the shooting for you)
