On 2009-11-05 22:22:39 -0500, Leandro Lucarella <llu...@gmail.com> said:
Michel Fortin, el 5 de noviembre a las 19:43 me escribiste:
But if you remove bound checking, it isn't safe anymore, is it?
100% safe doesn't exist. If you think you have it because of
bound-checking, you are wrong.
True. What I meant was some things that were supposed to be safe in
SafeD (arrays) are no longer safe, pretty much destroying the concept
of SafeD being memory safe.
Sometime safety is more important than performance. [...]
What if I'm using an external library that I don't control? *That's* the
problem for me, I want to be able to compile things I *trust* as if they
were *trusted* :)
I vote for an -unsafe (and/or -disable-bound-check). Safe should be the
default.
You're right. Having "-unsafe" to disable runtime checks is better than
"-safe" to enable them because then the default behavior is safe. And
it allows you to recompile any library you want with "-unsafe" to
remove runtime checks from @safe functions when you don't care about
safety.
--
Michel Fortin
michel.for...@michelf.com
http://michelf.com/
