On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 08:31:07 -0500, Jason House
<jason.james.ho...@gmail.com> wrote:
Steven Schveighoffer Wrote:
So the signature of strstr has to be unmarked (no @safe or @trusted).
I disagree. Borrowing the syntax from the return const proposal, let's
define strstr as follows:
inout(char[]) strstr(inout(char[]) buf, const(char[]) orig);
What I want that to tell the compiler is that buf, or some piece of buf,
is returned from strstr. (please don't assign any more meaning than
that, i.e. constness of buf). The compiler would then treat the return
value with the same protection as buf, and a return without .dup is a
compile error.
I've been in drawn out discussions with you before. If this post and my
prior post don't make you budge from your position than I'll simply give
up trying to convince you. It's not worth the aggregation.
Sure, we can stop discussing. I'll just say I think the escape analysis
problem is more complicated than the scoped const problem. Simply
because, scoped parameters are not necessarily non-mutable, whereas scoped
const parameters are always treated as const. scoped const has one output
(the return value) and N inputs. escape analysis has N inputs and M
outputs. Annotation is going to be very hard for functions like swap.
Simplifications are possible, but like I said, conservative line in the
sand.
-Steve
