On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 06:04:16 -0500, Don wrote:
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
Actually, I'd hope for a way of checking that @unsafe functions are
called only from @trusted functions, and NOT from unmarked ones --
that's the way I'd proceed in moving a codebase over to 'safe'.
That would
Walter Bright wrote:
Don wrote:
Actually, I'd hope for a way of checking that @unsafe functions are
called only from @trusted functions, and NOT from unmarked ones --
that's the way I'd proceed in moving a codebase over to 'safe'.
That would be fairly viral. I'm concerned it would make it an
Don wrote:
Actually, I'd hope for a way of checking that @unsafe functions are
called only from @trusted functions, and NOT from unmarked ones --
that's the way I'd proceed in moving a codebase over to 'safe'.
That would be fairly viral. I'm concerned it would make it an impediment
to use.
Don wrote:
Actually, I'd hope for a way of checking that @unsafe functions are
called only from @trusted functions, and NOT from unmarked ones --
that's the way I'd proceed in moving a codebase over to 'safe'.
Based on the idea that the most common cause of safety violation is via
passing incor
Walter Bright wrote:
@unsafe was suggested (I think by Don) to provide symmetry with @safe
and @trusted. This is a good point, but I'm starting to think that
@unsafe is not a good idea.
For example, one could make an entire module safe with:
---
module foo;
@safe:
[...]
--
Walter Bright Wrote:
> bearophile wrote:
> > Walter Bright:
> >
> >> Furthermore, why would a safe module wish to expose unsafe functions?
> >> Shouldn't the programmer instead be obliged to produce trusted functions
> >> in it?
> >
> > If what you say is right, then what's the purpose/advanta
On Tue, Nov 10, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Walter Bright
wrote:
> @unsafe was suggested (I think by Don) to provide symmetry with @safe and
> @trusted. This is a good point, but I'm starting to think that @unsafe is
> not a good idea.
>
> For example, one could make an entire module safe with:
>
> -
bearophile wrote:
Walter Bright:
Furthermore, why would a safe module wish to expose unsafe functions?
Shouldn't the programmer instead be obliged to produce trusted functions
in it?
If what you say is right, then what's the purpose/advantage of using:
module foo;
@safe:
Instead of this?
mo
Walter Bright:
> Furthermore, why would a safe module wish to expose unsafe functions?
> Shouldn't the programmer instead be obliged to produce trusted functions
> in it?
If what you say is right, then what's the purpose/advantage of using:
module foo;
@safe:
Instead of this?
module(safe) foo;
@unsafe was suggested (I think by Don) to provide symmetry with @safe
and @trusted. This is a good point, but I'm starting to think that
@unsafe is not a good idea.
For example, one could make an entire module safe with:
---
module foo;
@safe:
[...]
---
And an
10 matches
Mail list logo
