On 2/5/2015 7:00 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/5/15 6:52 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/5/2015 6:26 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
(2) I don't think the proposal you sketched at http://goo.gl/JWqafx is
good.
The goo link is disabled for violating goo's terms of service, whatever
that means.
What's the real url?
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/[email protected]#post-mailman.6039.1423163991.9932.digitalmars-d:40puremagic.com
Thank you. Essentially, the proposal attaches safe/trusted/system to variables.
I don't believe this works. Safety/unsafety can often be the emergent
combination of state of many otherwise 'safe' variables.
In any case, it lacks any demonstration of how it would address the problems in
std.array. I.e. how could it insure that the code that initializes the array in
std.array.join() initializes every element? (That loop is in the 'safe' section!)
I don't see how any proposal can work unless it specifies a safe interface to an
unsafe section of code. (I read a Rust tutorial that rather bluntly pointed this
out as well.)
