So these two compile and, in non-debug builds, run just fine

[Walter Bright via Digitalmars-d]

On 11/25/2016 2:51 PM, Ethan Watson wrote:
> On Friday, 25 November 2016 at 15:30:35 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> But I think Walter's scope changes (DIP 1001 I think?) will make it so the
>> compiler rejects this even in non-safe mode.
>>
>> -Steve
>
> I really hope this is the case. Because, it needs to be said. If a modern
> language fails something like this then it's really not good enough in a modern,
> security-focused environment.

I agree. That's the whole point of DIP1000.

I predicted in my last presentation to NWCPP that it will soon be an industry 
requirement for selection of a programming language. Companies just cannot 
afford these sorts of bugs anymore.