[Issue 24098] Safe variable can be initialized from `@system` static constructor.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24098 --- Comment #5 from Dlang Bot --- dlang/dlang.org pull request #3789 "[spec/function] Fix Safe Interface definition" was merged into master: - e3fd3f0e5bebb9884e05a1bc9031176a682df365 by Nick Treleaven: [spec] Fix Safe interface definition 1. M

[Issue 24098] Safe variable can be initialized from `@system` static constructor.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24098 --- Comment #4 from Dlang Bot --- @ntrel created dlang/dlang.org pull request #3789 "[spec] Fix Safe interface definition" mentioning this issue: - [spec] Fix Safe interface definition 1. Mention context and globals for preconditions. Part of B

[Issue 24098] Safe variable can be initialized from `@system` static constructor.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24098 Nick Treleaven changed: What|Removed |Added CC||n...@geany.org --- Comment #3 from Nick Tre

[Issue 24098] Safe variable can be initialized from `@system` static constructor.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24098 --- Comment #2 from timon.g...@gmx.ch --- I think the program is still at odds with the language specification even if requirement 2 is not considered to be violated, because clearly it violates requirement 1 and the preconditions hold (the preconditi

[Issue 24098] Safe variable can be initialized from `@system` static constructor.

https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=24098 --- Comment #1 from timon.g...@gmx.ch --- Actually, depending on how exactly you interpret "create unsafe values", I guess my `main` function may not violate requirement 2. However, I think this is still a problem for memory safety in D and worth addr