On Friday, July 27, 2012 23:28:17 Michel Fortin wrote: > On 2012-07-28 03:24:58 +0000, Michel Fortin <[email protected]> said: > > On 2012-07-28 00:08:28 +0000, "David Nadlinger" <[email protected]> said: > >> @trusted in its current form needs to go. Its design is badly broken, > >> as it leaks implementation details and encourages writing unsafe code. > > > > @trusted is a dangerous thing. Since the first time I tried to use it, > > I always found it troublesome. I agree it needs to be a scope. And for > > backward compatibility, a @trusted function should be exactly the same > > as a @safe function where the whole body is wrapped in a @trusted scope. > > And when I say it "needs to be a scope", what I meat is a block. I > don't think it should be a new scope unless someone finds a good reason > for it (unsafe struct destructors?)
If you need another scope, you can always just use a second set of braces, but if an @trusted block introduces another scope, there's no way to make it _not_ introduce one (not without adding more syntax to make it not introduce one anyway). - Jonathan M Davis
