On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:52:39 -0400, Timon Gehr <[email protected]> wrote:
On 06/05/2014 08:35 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On Thu, 05 Jun 2014 14:30:49 -0400, Timon Gehr <[email protected]>
wrote:
The fundamental issue seems to lie in methodology and it is that @safe
is approximated by the DMD implementation from the wrong side. Instead
of gradually banning usage of more and more constructs in @safe, the
implementation should have started out with not allowing any
constructs in @safe code and then should have gradually allowed more
and more manually verified to be memory safe constructs.
I think I was one of those who argued to do it gradually. I was wrong.
I don't understand. Both strategies are gradual.
One starts with a decidedly non-gradual breaking change.
-Steve
