bearophile wrote:
grauzone:
That is, if SafeD is really meant to be more than a vaporware-joke.<
The idea of SafeD is good, but I'd like the current idea to have a different name,
because if I see a name like SafeD I think about the rounded up safety like in C#/Java,
while SafeD is "safe" only regarding a very specific thing (and Walter doesn't
seem interested in the other kinds of safeties that in the last years language designers
stress).
You mean memory safety? The "other" safety can as well go into D
directly, because it doesn't interfere with the goals of performance or
system programming.
An example would be to introduce different kinds of casts: casts that
are always safe (real-to-int, dynamic casts, ...), and casts that allow
horrible (but sometimes needed) stuff like reinterpret casting pointers
into integers.
Bye,
bearophile
