Safe mode in D?

[Maxim Fomin]

On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:40:08 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:25:58 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>> On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 07:42:24 UTC, Max Samukha 
>> wrote:
>>> On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 07:24:49 UTC, Maxim Fomin 
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actual definition of safity in D is "Safe functions are 
>>>> functions that are statically checked to exhibit no 
>>>> possibility of undefined behavior. Undefined behavior is 
>>>> often used as a vector for malicious attacks. " I provided 
>>>> many cases where this does not happen.
>>>
>>> I know the definition. Aren't we discussing a different 
>>> matter - your dissatisfaction with the fact that D's control 
>>> flow analysis does not prevent indirect calls to the 
>>> constructor?
>>
>> No. Topic of the thread is Safe D. The point was made that D's
>> safe mode is not safe at all. Constructor invocation is a
>> spin-off of the topic.
>
> It's you who made that spin-off, trying to foist it in as yet 
> another example of D's unsafety. I was replying to that.
>

It seems you missed the point - see second post in page 5.

Actually aggregate name of collection was "(collection of memory
errors, type  system breakages and other cases to shoot your foot
provided by bugzilla issues, me and other people)". It doesn't
mean that each example shows memory error bug. Obviously this
case doesn't show unsafity, it shows that the limitation imposed
on the language is arbitrary and groundless.

>>
>> By the way, no dissatisfaction here, as I don't by D premises 
>> at
>> all.
>
> You sounded dissatisfied.

No, I can't be, because I don't buy D promises at all. Man cannot 
be dissatisfied with something when he expects thing to be broken 
and it actually happens.