On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 22:17:00 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
On Monday, 26 June 2017 at 18:47:18 UTC, Random D user wrote:
Anyway, I think we could just have a compile time switch for
defaults.
Imagine having n libraries with pairwise different required
defaults used in your application. Say goodbye to combined
compilation, hello n separate required compiler invocations.
Yeah, that's true. I didn't really think of full source
compilation of libs in your project. I though .lib would've been
compiled with some settings and you'd just link with that and
work with its api.
Also in reality I wouldn't want to be able to cancel @nogc in a
function, because then the attribute would just lose power and
you couldn't trust it. I just used it as a simple example for the
@ and @! syntax that I'd like to have in general. Which would
allow a nice way of working with sections of code like this:
class
{
@nogc: or @!gc:
... some code ..
@gc: or @gc:
... more code ..
@nogc: or @!gc:
... even more code ..
}
Also I think @safe is a little bit broken (because of @trusted
and even the very pros (d-devs) seem to get @trusted wrong on
a regular basis (at least that's my perception)). Just bite
the bullet and use Rust if you want to be actually safe.
Except Rust is in exactly the same boat as D, because the same
issues that apply to `@trusted` apply to `unsafe`, as well.
Hmmm, I guess that's true. I don't really know a lot about Rust.
Their safety story just sounds way more convincing and believable
than D's. It would probably be the first language I'd look into
if I was interested in low level safety critical code.
