safety model in D

[Rainer Deyke]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Rainer Deyke wrote:
>> '-safe' turns on runtime safety checks, which can be and should be
>> mostly orthogonal to the module safety level.
> 
> Runtime vs. compile-time is immaterial.

The price of compile-time checks is that you are restricted to a subset
of the language, which may or may not allow you to do what you need to do.

The price of runtime checks is runtime performance.

Safety is always good.  To me, the question is never if I want safety,
but if I can afford it.  If I can't afford to pay the price of runtime
checks, I may still want the compile-time checks.  If I can't afford to
pay the price of compile-time checks, I may still want the runtime
checks.  Thus, to me, the concepts of runtime and compile-time checks
are orthogonal.

A module either passes the compile-time checks or it does not.  It makes
no sense make the compile-time checks optional for some modules.  If the
module is written to pass the compile-time checks (i.e. uses the safe
subset of the language), then the compile-time checks should always be
performed for that module.


-- 
Rainer Deyke - rainerd at eldwood.com