Jesse Phillips wrote:
Andrei Alexandrescu Wrote:
Jesse Phillips wrote:
On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 23:13:14 -0600, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
I think the only real option is to have the importer decide if it is
trusted.
That can't work. I can't say that stdc.stdlib is trusted no matter how
hard I try. I mean free is there!
I would like to disagree here.
void free(void *ptr);
free() takes a pointer. There is no way for the coder to get a pointer in
SafeD, compiler won't let them, so the function is unusable by a "safe"
module even if the function is imported.
Pointers should be available to SafeD, just not certain operations with
them.
Andrei
I must have been confused by the statement:
"As long as these pointers are not exposed to the client, such an implementation
might be certified to be SafeD compatible1 ."
Found on the article for SafeD. I realize things may change, just sounded like
pointers were not ever an option.
Yes, sorry for not mentioning that. It was Walter's idea to allow
restricted use of pointers in SafeD. Initially we were thinking of
banning pointers altogether.
Andrei
