On 8/6/15 4:24 PM, "Per =?UTF-8?B?Tm9yZGzDtnci?=
<[email protected]>" wrote:
On Tuesday, 4 August 2015 at 20:54:43 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
How complete is the dip25 implementation?
For example, should this be expected to be an error?
struct S
{
int[5] x;
auto foo() { return x[];}
}
You need to (at least) qualify `foo` as @safe.
According to 2.067.0 it was an error without annotating as @safe if you
use -dip25. I don't understand the "relaxing" of it in the latest
version, but maybe I'm missing something.
If x was a function local, you don't need to mark foo @safe to get an
error. I thought dip25 was supposed to make that the norm for all data
that it could prove was being improperly escaped.
-Steve
