On Saturday, 15 April 2023 at 13:24:52 UTC, Richard (Rikki)
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
On 16/04/2023 1:20 AM, kdevel wrote:
On Saturday, 15 April 2023 at 12:45:31 UTC, Richard (Rikki)
Andrew Cattermole wrote:
It was bad analysis by the compiler, which has since been
corrected.
It should have been applied only to @safe code.
But why is the @unsafe programmer now left unprotected in
cases like this
```
ref int foo (ref int i)
// `------- automatically insert `return` here?
{
return i;
}
```
where the compiler recognizes that the function returns a ref
parameter?
Under which circumstances is it a mistake to insert the
`return` at the indicated position? If there are none why
can't it be done implicitly (automatically)?
@system (which is currently the default, there is a strong
desire to change this), does no safety checks.
When I insert `return` before `ref int` and compile the code dmd
says
```
returnref2.d(9): Error: returning `foo(i)` escapes a reference to
local variable `i`
```
Isn't this a safety check? (The code does not contain any `@`.)
My question was if it is problematic if dmd inserted a `return`
before any `ref` parameter a function returns.
Did the removed code which checked for returning ref parameters
have false positives?
If not again my question: Under what circumstances would it be a
mistake to insert `return` before the respective `ref` parameter?
