Andrei Alexandrescu, el 3 de noviembre a las 17:54 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >Andrei Alexandrescu, el 3 de noviembre a las 16:33 me escribiste: > >>SafeD is, unfortunately, not finished at the moment. I want to leave > >>in place a stub that won't lock our options. Here's what we > >>currently have: > >> > >>module(system) calvin; > >> > >>This means calvin can do unsafe things. > >> > >>module(safe) susie; > >> > >>This means susie commits to extra checks and therefore only a subset of D. > >> > >>module hobbes; > >> > >>This means hobbes abides to whatever the default safety setting is. > >> > >>The default safety setting is up to the compiler. In dmd by default > >>it is "system", and can be overridden with "-safe". > > > >What's the rationale for letting the compiler decide? I can't see nothing > >but trouble about this. A module will tipically be writen to be safe or > >system, I think the default should be defined (I'm not sure what the > >default should be though). > > The parenthesis pretty much destroys your point :o).
I guess this is a joke, but I have to ask: why? I'm not sure about plenty of stuff, that doesn't mean they are pointless. > I don't think letting the implementation decide is a faulty model. > If you know what you want, you say it. Otherwise it means you don't > care. I can't understand how you can't care. Maybe I'm misunderstanding the proposal, since nobody else seems to see a problem here. -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- CAMPAÑA POR LA PAZ: APLASTARON JUGUETES BÉLICOS -- Crónica TV
