On 06/05/2014 08:47 PM, deadalnix wrote:
On Thursday, 5 June 2014 at 18:33:22 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 06/05/2014 08:17 PM, deadalnix wrote:
@safe is fundamentally broken.
What's the "fundamental" problem? The construct seems perfectly fit to
specify memory safety in at least the following context:
void main()@safe{}
:o)
Many constructs are assumed to be @safe on basis @safe don't
guarantee.
T[] arr = [ ... ];
arr = arr[$ .. $];
auto garbage = *(arr.ptr);
@safe is as safe a a condom with holes poked in it.
I see this not as a fundamental problem with @safe, but with how its
implementation has been approached.
