It is forbidden by specification, but an interesting reason.
for example:
struct S
{
static S opCall()
{
S res;
int a,b,c,d;
int[10] data; // If I comment out this line compilation goes
smoothly
return res;
}
}
void main()
{
static S s = S();
}
Sat, 13 Dec 2008 06:59:51 -0500, Zoran Isailovski wrote:
> Anyway, following the latter pattern, you don't need global analysis.
> You can determine if n is on the stack (it is - it's an argument),
> you can determine if it's referenced from within the closure (it is),
> and you can determine if t
Zoran Isailovski:
> I like the approach of Ada, Oberon, and (I think) Modula-3 - all of which
> have successfully been used for system programming - in that they allow
> unsafe constructs ONLY in modules specifically marked as "unsafe".<
This is already becoming true in the last version of DMD.
Reply to Zoran,
Christopher Wright Wrote:
I'd rather stop here, because this is probably not the place to
discuss these things. But perhaps you can direct me to a discussion
group or sth.?
Don't worry, This NG has a long standing tradition of epic rambling OT threads
("[~ot] why is programm
Reply to Zoran,
BCS Wrote:
Reply to Zoran,
I don't think it is restrictive if the compiler prevented a
situation that would otherwise lead to a run-time error anyway, or
worse, weird and confusing run-time behavior. In my case, if the
compiler couldn't SAFELY handle a reference to the argume
Christopher Wright Wrote:
> Zoran Isailovski wrote:
> > Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then, why
> > would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For that, we've
> > got C and C++, don't we?)
> >
> > Anyway, I've been looking for a modern and *s
Simen Kjaeraas Wrote:
> Zoran Isailovski wrote:
>
> > Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then,
> > why would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For
> > that, we've got C and C++, don't we?)
>
> Because we want D to be the new C/C++? :p
>
>
On Sat, Dec 13, 2008 at 9:09 AM, Christopher Wright wrote:
> D tries to make it easy to do the safe thing. It's a systems language, so it
> has to allow you to do unsafe things without too much trouble -- but usually
> with some not-too-pretty syntax to indicate that you're doing something
> unsaf
Zoran Isailovski wrote:
Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then, why
would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For that, we've got
C and C++, don't we?)
Anyway, I've been looking for a modern and *safe* language, but without the
overkill of a J
Sergey Gromov Wrote:
> Fri, 12 Dec 2008 15:24:39 -0500, Zoran Isailovski wrote:
>
> > Denis Koroskin Wrote:
> >
> On Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:32:03 +0300, Zoran Isailovski
> wrote:
>
> > I'm an experienced C#, Java and Python programmer, and have employed
> > closures (and C
Zoran Isailovski wrote:
Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then,
why would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For
that, we've got C and C++, don't we?)
Because we want D to be the new C/C++? :p
D is unsafe in that it lets you shoot yourse
BCS Wrote:
> Reply to Zoran,
>
> > I don't think it is restrictive if the compiler prevented a situation
> > that would otherwise lead to a run-time error anyway, or worse, weird
> > and confusing run-time behavior. In my case, if the compiler couldn't
> > SAFELY handle a reference to the argumen
Tue, 9 Dec 2008 03:25:07 + (UTC), Dan W wrote:
> 1: Even though D has an automatic garbage collector, is one still
> allowed to free the memory of a malloced array manually (using free
> () ), to avoid pauses in the program?
Just to clarify. There are 3 types of allocation:
1. std.c.stdlib
13 matches
Mail list logo