Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"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.
I can think of division by zero as an example. What others are out there?
Andrei
