Hello Nick,
"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:ha2run$275...@digitalmars.com...
2. possible dereference of NULL pointers (some reaching definitions
of a
pointer are NULL)
2. Optimizer collects the info, but ignores this, because people are
annoyed by false positives.
If you mean something like this:
Foo f;
if(cond)
f = new Foo();
f.bar();
Then I *want* the compiler to tell me. C# does this and I've never
been annoyed by it, in fact I've always appreciated it. I'm not aware
of any other C# user that has a problem with that either. If that's
not what you mean though, then could you elaborate?
I think it is important to note that the check DMD is not using checks for
null where as C# checks for uninitialized
legal in c# but flagged by this test:
Foo f = null;
if(cond) f = new Foo();
f.bar();
6. array overflows
6. Arrays are solidly covered by a runtime check. There is code in
the
optimizer to detect many cases of overflows at compile time, but the
code
is currently disabled because the runtime check covers 100% of the
cases.
I'm puzzled by why you would prefer to leave this entirely runtime
when some of it can be detected at compile-time. Normally you agree
that catching something at compile-time is better whenever possible.
So shouldn't the array overflows that can be detected at compile-time
be detected at compile-time? I would certainly prefer that.
Ditto on this; Walter, what is your rational on this?
