On Monday, 3 November 2014 at 00:16:48 UTC, ketmar via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
error-prone code. no, this is not "another task for lint". not
rejecting such code is "safe" in the terms of "program will not
segfault", but it's obviously not safe in terms of "correct
code".
Yes, this is a common complaint. Without solid semantic analysis
it would probably be better to only have dynamic vectors as a
library type with fat slices that are locked to the underlying
array. That's what everybody expects from a dynamic array type
anyway. …it is a reaaallyyy good idea to support what most
people's assumptions about dynamic arrays…
D would gain more from relaxing "memory safe" language constructs
and focus more on supporting programming constructs by semantic
analysis. This is an area where the C++ crowd will be gridlocked
to their backwards compatible mindset. But they are getting
increasingly more powerful sanitizers…
