I wonder if anybody has brought up the idea of using or expanding the SafeD
features to cover a user-defined kind of safety? Right now, @safe means
memory safe and it is defined by the language. However, there are many kinds
of safety that benefit from being layered in a manner similar to how
s
My pet feature request could do this too. User defined attributes
combined with a list of functions called by a function.
===
@custom("mysafe") void foo() {}
void bar() {}
@custom("mysafe") void main() {
foo();
bar();
}
CheckCustomSafety!("mysafe", main);
template CheckCustomSafety(strin
On 08/26/2011 02:38 PM, Adam Ruppe wrote:
My pet feature request could do this too. User defined attributes
combined with a list of functions called by a function.
===
@custom("mysafe") void foo() {}
void bar() {}
@custom("mysafe") void main() {
foo();
bar();
}
CheckCustomSafety!("mys
Lutger Blijdestijn:
>I wonder if anybody has brought up the idea of using or expanding the SafeD
>features to cover a user-defined kind of safety?<
If you want to design this idea well, then I suggest you to read some papers a
bout Securty Types. You are able to find a brief overview from page
Den 26-08-2011 14:38, Adam Ruppe skrev:
My pet feature request could do this too. User defined attributes
combined with a list of functions called by a function.
===
@custom("mysafe") void foo() {}
void bar() {}
@custom("mysafe") void main() {
foo();
bar();
}
CheckCustomSafety!("mysaf
On 8/30/11 12:41 PM, jdrewsen wrote:
Couldn't this be used for marking classes as serializable. Something
like this:
class Foo {
@custom("serialize") Cake theCake;
Bar cache;
}
SerializeCustom!("serialize", Foo);
template SerializeCustom(string attribute, alias cls) {
foreach (m; __traits(lis
