On 05/11/2009 23:24, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
Nick Sabalausky wrote:
"Walter Bright" <newshou...@digitalmars.com> wrote in message
news:hcv5p9$2jh...@digitalmars.com...
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
Safe arithmetic like in C# that guards against overflows (throws on
overflow).
