On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 15:26:01 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 07.03.2018 15:08, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 13:55:11 UTC, Jonathan M Davis wrote:
[...]


Jonathan, I understand your point, but still I can't find an answer to clarify my doubts.

Are we asking for no UB in @safe code?
Are we asking for UB in @safe code but constrained to no memory corruptions?

/Paolo

UB is unconstrained by definition. If it is constrained, it is not UB.

That! Thanks!

So, @safe code is code where UB should not be possible?
Is it pragmatically possible to reach that goal?

/Paolo

Reply via email to