https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
Iain Buclaw changed:
What|Removed |Added
Priority|P1 |P2
--
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #16 from Paul Backus ---
(In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #15)
>
> The whole point of @safe is to avoid code review. Otherwise it's a
> glamorized linter. If you have to review @safe code to make sure things
> outside the s
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
anonymous4 changed:
What|Removed |Added
Blocks||19916
See Also|https://issues.dlang.o
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
anonymous4 changed:
What|Removed |Added
See Also||https://issues.dlang.org/sh
|
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #15 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to Paul Backus from comment #14)
> (In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #12)
> >
> > On the grounds that it's not desirable. It does not cause undefined
> > behavior, just useless beh
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #14 from Paul Backus ---
(In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #12)
>
> On the grounds that it's not desirable. It does not cause undefined
> behavior, just useless behavior. We are better off disallowing it.
"I don't like it"
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #13 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #12)
> It's just that the rules leave us with the reality that using such unions
> usable in @safe or @trusted code has no utility.
I rewrote this several
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #12 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to Paul Backus from comment #11)
> > Read-only access is fine. Write access is not.
>
> Again, on what grounds do you make this claim? Can writing to the integer
> member cause undefined behavi
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #11 from Paul Backus ---
> Read-only access is fine. Write access is not.
Again, on what grounds do you make this claim? Can writing to the integer
member cause undefined behavior in @safe-only code? If so, please provide an
example.
>
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #10 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to Paul Backus from comment #9)
> > I'm disagreeing with the ability of safe code to access any part of this.
>
> On what grounds? The point of @safe is to prevent undefined behavior, and
> all
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #9 from Paul Backus ---
> I'm disagreeing with the ability of safe code to access any part of this.
On what grounds? The point of @safe is to prevent undefined behavior, and
allowing access to the integer cannot possibly lead to undefine
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #8 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to RazvanN from comment #5)
> (In reply to Steven Schveighoffer from comment #3)
> > If you do intend to access the int *, then having any safe code anywhere
> > just change the integer ruins the
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #7 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
(In reply to Paul Backus from comment #4)
> The *intent* of the spec is clearly to allow code like this to be marked as
> @trusted. If the current wording of the spec does not allow that, then the
> spec's
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #6 from ag0aep6g ---
(In reply to Paul Backus from comment #2)
> The question is: should the value of `t` after `t.x = 5`, in comment 1's
> example, be considered an unsafe value?
[...]
> If we amend the spec as follows:
>
> > A struct/u
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
RazvanN changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||razvan.nitu1...@gmail.com
--- Comment #5 from Razv
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #4 from Paul Backus ---
Consider the following example:
---
union T { int x; int* y; }
@trusted void example(T t)
{
import std.stdio;
t.x = 123;
writeln(t.x);
t.y = new int;
writeln(t.y);
}
---
This code is memory-
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
--- Comment #3 from Steven Schveighoffer ---
A union between a pointer and integer is most definitely unsafe in all
instances. If you never intend to access the int*, in any circumstance, then
why have a union?
If you do intend to access the int *,
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
Paul Backus changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||snarwin+bugzi...@gmail.com
--- Comment #2 from
https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21565
ag0aep6g changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||ag0ae...@gmail.com
--- Comment #1 from ag0aep6g
19 matches
Mail list logo
