Reddit: SafeD - The Safe Subset of D
Georg Wrede
georg at nospam.org
Mon Mar 24 21:37:45 PDT 2008
Walter Bright wrote:
> Georg Wrede wrote:
>> Walter Bright wrote:
>>> Julio César Carrascal Urquijo wrote:
>>>
>>>> How will one assert that a library function is certified for usage
>>>> in SafeD even if it uses unsafe constructs? New keywords?
>>>
>>> There'll have to be some syntax for that.
>>
>> I hope you mean that once such a library function is Certified, it
>> gets some kind of [at least compiler readable] property stating that
>> it is SafeD compliant?
>
> Yes.
>
>> As to the matter of certifying the function, in trivial cases the
>> compiler could do it.
>
> There's no reason to syntactically mark a function as safe if the
> compiler can verify it.
>
>> But with some important special cases, I can see no other way than to
>> manually scrutinize the source code. Think of a complicated function
>> (say, some hairy tensor math operation, maybe an FFT function, or
>> whatever that's nontrivial) that internally needs to do "unsafe"
>> operations or even in-line asm, but that has been deemed safe by
>> Authoritative Professionals.
>
> Yes, but the idea is to reduce the scope as much as possible of where
> you have to manually look for unsafe code.
I'm simply thrilled!
More information about the Digitalmars-d-announce
mailing list