On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 01:12:18 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
On 2/5/2015 4:13 PM, Dicebot wrote:
I know this definition. It have tried it in practice and
concluded as being
absolutely useless. There is no way I am going to return back
to this broken
concept - better to ignore @safe completely as misfeature if
you insist on doing
things that way.
I'm sorry I haven't been able to convince you. I don't have any
more arguments other than just repeating myself.
This is not about convincing but about showing the example
yourself. My disagreement is not theoretical - I trust you to be
much better in actual language design. But trusting alone won't
make a difference if I have no idea how use it in practice (after
trying and failing).
I am not even sure how you can show the example though, to be
honest - implied issues are about maintaining code and not just
writing it.
But D is a systems programming language, not a B&D language,
and anyone will be free to ignore @safe and continue to use the
other benefits of D, or use @safe in a way that conforms to
their own formulation of best practices.
It always feel awkward to ignore what was supposed to be a major
selling point for a language :(
