On Thursday, 7 February 2013 at 05:37:44 UTC, Rob T wrote:
On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 at 22:14:42 UTC, Andrei
Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/6/13 5:05 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
On 02/06/2013 08:12 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It would be more consistent with C++, but less so with the
notion of
safety. I find it very consistent that all uses of
&expression are safe,
and this is the kind of consistency Walter and I believe is
worth aiming
for.
So you are saying this should compile?:
struct S{
int x;
int foo()@safe{ return x; }
}
int delegate()@safe foo()@safe{
S s;
return &s.foo;
}
Yah, it should, and it also should detect the escape and
allocate foo's frame on the heap.
Andrei
I thought we wanted to minimize allocations, especially silent
ones. In the quoted example, I'd rather the address taking be
disallowed at compile time unless the programmer explicitly
allocated S on the heap.
--rt
In other words @safe should explicitly mean "I hereby verify that
the code is safe" not "I will silently re-write your code in
unknown ways to make it safe".
PLEASE reconsider!
--rt
