On 2/6/15 2:16 PM, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
On 2/6/15 11:11 AM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
On Fri, Feb 06, 2015 at 10:52:45AM -0800, Andrei Alexandrescu via
Digitalmars-d wrote:
On 2/6/15 10:42 AM, David Nadlinger wrote:
On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 18:39:28 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
It's clear. I just don't think it's a good point. -- Andrei
I'm not making a point; I'm posing a problem. What is your solution?
I think the problem is overstated. -- Andrei
This is precisely why I have lost all interest in @safe. It's clear that
the present problematic situation will continue to hold, and the
decision makers are not interested to address it. I am not going to
waste any more time and energy on this topic.
I've asked repeatedly for evidence of the "problematic situation", and
all I got was doomsday predictions "maintenance nightmare!". If you have
such, please show it. If not, thanks for a good course of action. -- Andrei
I think your strawman is overstated. The "doomsday" is the current
situation to which you and Walter have objected. If you think having
"better discipline" in reviews is going to fix it, I guess we will have
to wait and see what the evidence eventually does show. There isn't
evidence that either solution has worked, because neither has been
employed yet.
Logically, it makes sense to me that we should adjust how @trusted
operates to prevent preventable problems that you have identified. But
we can just keep the status quo and rely on manual process improvements
instead.
It's not terribly important to fix it right now, we can try your way
first, I don't see how adjusting the meaning of @trusted in the future
would be any more disruptive than it would be now.
If this is how it is to be, can we get some guidelines as to what should
and should not pass review for @trusted?
-Steve
