Andrei Alexandrescu, el 5 de noviembre a las 10:06 me escribiste: > Leandro Lucarella wrote: > >A clear example of this, is not being able to take the address of a local. > >This is too restrictive to be useful, as you pointed in you post about > >having to write static methods because of this. If you can't find > >a workaround for this, I guess safety in D can look a little unrealistic. > > Sorry, I forgot to mention one thing. My example of List in the > thread "An interesting consequence of safety requirements" used > struct, but it should be mentioned there's a completely safe > alternative: just define List as a class and there is no safety > problem at all. Java, C#, and others define lists as classes and it > didn't seem to kill them. I agree that using a struct in D would be > marginally more efficient, but that doesn't mean that if I want > safety I'm dead in the water. In particular it's great that pointers > are still usable in SafeD. I'm actually surprised that nobody sees > how nicely safety fits D, particularly its handling of "ref".
See my other response about efficiency of D when using new/classes a lot. You just can't do it efficiently in D, ask bearophile for some benchmarks ;) -- Leandro Lucarella (AKA luca) http://llucax.com.ar/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- GPG Key: 5F5A8D05 (F8CD F9A7 BF00 5431 4145 104C 949E BFB6 5F5A 8D05) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Wake from your sleep, the drying of your tears, Today we escape, we escape.
