@trust is an encapsulation method, not an escape
weaselcat via Digitalmars-d
digitalmars-d at puremagic.com
Fri Feb 6 15:21:49 PST 2015
On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 23:02:54 UTC, Zach the Mystic wrote:
> No, at least three of us, Steven, H.S. Teoh and myself have
> confirmed that we've moved beyond requesting @trusted blocks.
> We are no longer requesting them. We are requesting *@system*
> blocks, which can only appear in @trusted and @system
> functions. Any unsafe code appearing in a @trusted function
> which is not inside a @system block is an error. We've changed
> the name, but I think it will make a world of difference
> regarding how you will look at it. Marking '@system' code
> inside a @trusted function is exactly what is requested. Your
> message about '@trusted' being only acceptable as an interface
> has been heard. There will be no @trusted blocks, only @system
> blocks, which are the exact same thing, except they can only
> appear in @trusted and @system functions.
>
> This solution appeals to me greatly. It pinpoints precisely
> where unsafe code can generate; it catches unintended safety
> violations in all @trusted code outside @system blocks, as
> requested by many people so far; it makes systems programming
> highly visible, with redundancy at the function signature and
> at the unsafe code itself. I really think it's spot on!
this sounds interesting, is anyone going to make a DIP for it?
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list