On 5/22/12 1:14 PM, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
I agree, it's unsound. But so is this:
int *blah = void;
*blah = 5;
It doesn't mean that the language should forbid it, or that the compiler
isn't implemented as designed.
Initialization with void is a feature. My example shows the fail of a
feature. There is no comparison.
At the *very least*, the address to member function operation should be
illegal in @safe code.
It should be verboten. Other means should be devised for achieving
whatever utility is there.
At best things could be arranged that &Test.foo has type void
function(Test) or something.
I would suggest that it should be:
function(Test this) with the 'this' being mangled into the name, and
affect the calling convention.
Structs would be function(ref Test this).
And const/shared/immutable decorations should apply properly to the
'this' parameter.
I'd wholeheartedly support such an improvement. In fact, I'd be willing
to write a DIP on it, if Walter had a chance of approving it. I just
don't know if it would happen...
Very reasonable. Walter, could you please weigh in on this.
Thanks,
Andrei
