On 12/18/12 7:29 PM, H. S. Teoh wrote:
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.)
Yes, there are several bugs related to SafeD.
Andrei
