On 1/20/15 4:10 PM, "Ola Fosheim =?UTF-8?B?R3LDuHN0YWQi?=
<ola.fosheim.grostad+dl...@gmail.com>" wrote:
On Tuesday, 20 January 2015 at 20:51:18 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
On 1/20/15 3:39 PM, ketmar via Digitalmars-d wrote:
and all that mess can be avoided just by enforcing the one simple rule,
which compiler is perfectly able to check.
I think the current situation is fine.
In other words, memory safety is no longer a goal.
Excellent! I hope that means the effort wasted on memory safety will be
used to address the other weak spots instead, such as the syntax.
How's that? The current runtime aborts on memory allocation inside the
GC collection routine, it's not a memory safety issue.
-Steve
