On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 16:19:26 UTC, John Colvin wrote:
On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 16:11:31 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu
wrote:
On 2/6/15 3:57 AM, Martin Krejcirik wrote:
If I understand it correctly, Walter is against adding
trusted blocks
(trusted {...}) into @safe functions. But what about having
safe blocks
in @trusted functions ?
That would be sensible - perhaps the best step forward
following this long discussion. -- Andrei
It feels inelegant, but it might be the best way out of a bad
situation.
I can instantly see this happening:
void foo() @trusted
{
@safe
{
//loads of code
}
//a few lines of system code, only safe due to context in
the @safe blocks
@safe
{
\\loads of code
}
}
Is that what we want? I can't see why not, but it feels off
somehow... Effectively you've got @trusted blocks in an
@trusted function, just inverted.
It's been suggested that '@system' be used to mark the blocks in
question. The point would be to emphasize the dangerousness of
the operation. The function is still @trusted, but inside, the
@system code is marked as such.
