On Thursday, 10 April 2014 at 17:37:53 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:25:25 -0400, bearophile
<bearophileh...@lycos.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer:
No, the author of the @safe code expects bounds checking,
it's part of the requirements.
Take a look ad Ada language. It has bounds checking and its
compilers have a switch to disable those checks. If you want
the bounds checking don't use the switch that disables the
bounds checking. Safety doesn't mean to have no way to work
around safety locks. It means have nice handy locks that are
active on default. In a system language total safety is an
illusion. Better to focus on real world safety and not a
illusion of theoretical safety.
That's why we have @trusted.
No. @trusted is for code that cannot be guaranteed to be
memory-safe by the compiler (either at runtime or at
compile-time), but the programmer still wants to promise that the
code is memory-safe. Array bounds checking doesn't land under
that moniker, it can be checked by the compiler.
