On Monday, 5 May 2014 at 09:32:40 UTC, JR wrote:
On Sunday, 4 May 2014 at 21:18:24 UTC, Daniele M. wrote:
And then comes my next question: except for that malloc-hack,
would it have been possible to write it in @safe D? I guess
that if not, module(s) could have been made un-@safe. Not
saying that a similar separation of concerns was not possible
in OpenSSL itself, but that D could have made it less
development-expensive in my opinion.
TDPL SafeD visions notwithstanding, @safe is very very limiting.
I/O is forbidden so simple Hello Worlds are right out, let
alone advanced socket libraries.
I/O is not forbidden, it's just that writeln and friends
currently can't be made safe, but that is being worked on AFAIK.
While I/O usually goes through the OS, the system calls can be
manually verified and made @trusted.
