On 6/18/2014 12:05 AM, deadalnix wrote:
On Wednesday, 18 June 2014 at 07:02:43 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 6/17/2014 11:50 PM, deadalnix wrote:
and the fact that @safe is defined backward (ie by listing what is not
allowed and
adding to the list when new holes are discovered
https://issues.dlang.org/buglist.cgi?bug_status=NEW&bug_status=ASSIGNED&bug_status=REOPENED&keywords=safe%2C%20&keywords_type=allwords&list_id=41168&query_format=advanced
Currently, there are zero bugzilla issues tagged with 'safe'. Please file
bugzilla issues for which ones are discovered and tag them!
I don't even know what to answer to that. We are clearly talking past each other
here, and I have no idea how to convey the message in a better way.
1. A long list of problems with @safe has been asserted, but I have not been
able to elicit any enumeration of them, so the extent of this problem is
completely unknown.
2. The definition of @safe in the spec is asserted to be utterly wrong, but no
corrected definition has been proposed.
3. A new approach to designing @safe has been proposed in vague terms, but
nothing specific and no offers of help to flesh it out.
From my perspective, it is like bug reports I'd often get for the compiler that
consisted solely of:
"Your compiler doesn't work."
It's just not helpful. There's nothing I can do with that.
Also, D is a collaborative effort. If there's an issue that engages your
interest, step up and help out. I simply cannot do everything. This n.g. is full
of "you should do this, you should do that" largely directed at me. You guys
want things to happen, make them happen!
