On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:40:08 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:25:58 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 07:42:24 UTC, Max Samukha
wrote:
On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 07:24:49 UTC, Maxim Fomin
wrote:
Actual definition of safity in D is "Safe functions are
functions that are statically checked to exhibit no
possibility of undefined behavior. Undefined behavior is
often used as a vector for malicious attacks. " I provided
many cases where this does not happen.
I know the definition. Aren't we discussing a different
matter - your dissatisfaction with the fact that D's control
flow analysis does not prevent indirect calls to the
constructor?
No. Topic of the thread is Safe D. The point was made that D's
safe mode is not safe at all. Constructor invocation is a
spin-off of the topic.
It's you who made that spin-off, trying to foist it in as yet
another example of D's unsafety. I was replying to that.
It seems you missed the point - see second post in page 5.
Actually aggregate name of collection was "(collection of memory
errors, type system breakages and other cases to shoot your foot
provided by bugzilla issues, me and other people)". It doesn't
mean that each example shows memory error bug. Obviously this
case doesn't show unsafity, it shows that the limitation imposed
on the language is arbitrary and groundless.
By the way, no dissatisfaction here, as I don't by D premises
at
all.
You sounded dissatisfied.
No, I can't be, because I don't buy D promises at all. Man cannot
be dissatisfied with something when he expects thing to be broken
and it actually happens.
