Reply to Andrei,
IMHO it is better to keep system-fu at the module level instead of
sprinkled all over. This is exactly a case when, counter-intuitively,
more restrictive is better. This restrictions will help people
organize code with few low-level modules supporting a large number of
safe modu
bearophile wrote:
(That is to allow to specify a list of what to be safe of, at the top
of the module?) A possible syntax: module(safe1, safe2, ...)
Identifier;
I suggest seeing how things go with just module(System) for now. It may
prove to be plenty adequate.
BCS wrote:
Reply to Walter,
bearophile wrote:
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
Doing it at the module level was deliberate.
Reply to Walter,
bearophile wrote:
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
Doing it at the module level was deliberate. Not for t
Walter Bright:
> Doing it at the module level was deliberate. Not for technical reasons,
> but to make it easy for people doing quality code reviews. System
> modules should be segregated and given special attention. Having it
> dispersed throughout the code modules pretty much excludes being ab
bearophile wrote:
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
Doing it at the module level was deliberate. Not for technical reasons,
but
Reply to bearophile,
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
I like the idea of being able to turn on or off different checks (BTW S
The last changelog of D2:
http://www.digitalmars.com/d/2.0/changelog.html#new2_021
Says:
>Added -safe switch and module(system) Identifier; syntax.<
I am not sure that's the best solution.
A solution that I may like is a statement (that doesn't create a new scope,
like the
