"Walter Bright" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]... > > Based on Andrei's and Cardelli's ideas, I propose that Safe D be defined > as the subset of D that guarantees no undefined behavior. Implementation > defined behavior (such as varying pointer sizes) is still allowed. > > Safety seems more and more to be a characteristic of a function, rather > than a module or command line switch. To that end, I propose two new > attributes: > > @safe > @trusted >
Sounds great! The lower-grained safeness makes a lot of sense, and I'm thrilled at the idea of safe D finally encompassing more than just memory safety - I'd been hoping to see that happen ever since I first heard that "safeD" only ment memory-safe.
