Sent from my iPhone
On Mar 15, 2012, at 12:29 PM, Sean Kelly <[email protected]> wrote: > It seems there may be somewhat of a difference between D and SafeD here, > because the latter should be immune to memory corruption (which is what I > think of when you say the program is corrupted). So for SafeD I'd expect most > errors to come from contract clauses and RangeErrors. Should D still make > things worse by not attempting any cleanup? I'll admit I'm torn. Is it legal to catch an error in SafeD? Based in the discussion in this thread, I think the answer should be "no". Given that, I don't think SafeD should go out of its way to make unsafe code safer. _______________________________________________ dmd-internals mailing list [email protected] http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/dmd-internals
