On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 07:08:04PM -0500, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > On 12/18/12 3:35 PM, Walter Bright wrote: > >And no, I don't think D can be a systems language *and* eliminate all > >undefined and implementation defined behavior. > > The SafeD subset takes care of that. [...]
Which right now suffers from some silly things like writefln not being able to be made @safe, just because some obscure formatting parameter is un@safe. Which is exactly how @safe was designed, of course. Except that it makes SafeD ... a bit of a letdown, shall we say? - when it comes to practical real-world applications. (And just to be clear, I'm all for SafeD, but it does still have a ways to go.) T -- Elegant or ugly code as well as fine or rude sentences have something in common: they don't depend on the language. -- Luca De Vitis