On Saturday, 16 August 2025 at 15:44:09 UTC, Brother Bill wrote:
On Saturday, 16 August 2025 at 15:30:43 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
On Sat, Aug 16, 2025 at 03:24:55PM +0000, Brother Bill via
Digitalmars-d-learn wrote: [...]
So a good D developer should not store an invalid pointer
address into a pointer, with the single exception of storing
a pointer address just past a slice or array.
Where does it say this in the spec? Because this is wrong.
D arrays carry length with them; they do not rely on pointers
pointing past the allocated memory region.
T
Source: Programming in D book, page 432, chapter 68.8
Quote: It is valid to point at the imaginary element one past
the end of an array.
That's poorly written and unnecessary verbosity, the code block
is about slicing with indexes, and that's a logical coniquence of
exclusive bounds.
Maybe that was early on in the range v iterator days and he was
imagining c++ itorators may matter, they didnt, use ranges and
slice quickly.
Maybe the spec and new gc should care, you shouldn't
The gc breaks clever pointers so the pressure to swap to indexes
is even higher here. The safetyphiles will talk about bound
checks being great ignore them, it's about solving off by one
errors once and decreasing the users typing to 1 variable to pass
around allowing for semi-tacit
