On 01/23/2018 01:20 AM, Mike Franklin wrote:
I would be surprised if
the compiler allowed you to do something like this in `@safe` code.
You might get surprised then, if you expect the compiler to reject code
like that statically.
If you add `@safe`, the compiler rejects this line:
ls ~= &foo;
But that line would only be problematic if the pointer would leave the
scope of the function. It doesn't, so this is actually safe. But the
compiler isn't smart enough to see this.
The real question is about this line:
p2 = ls[0];
That's an out-of-bounds access, and the compiler does not catch this
statically. Instead, it inserts bounds-checking code that crashes the
program safely with an `Error`.
