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