On 5/5/14, 2:32 AM, 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.
Sounds like a library bug. Has it been submitted? -- Andrei
