DIP 1006 - Preliminary Review Round 1

[Paolo Invernizzi]

On Wednesday, 7 March 2018 at 00:11:33 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 06.03.2018 19:49, Paolo Invernizzi wrote:
>> 
>> I simply don't understand why enforce or a custom check can't 
>> be used @safe code, if you want that behaviour.
>> ...
>
> I have explained why. UB is non-modular and you don't (want to) 
> control all the code that you use.

As I've written, you should ask for debug versions of every 
closed source library that it's used in a project, it's always a 
win-only things to do.

> Also, enforce cannot be disabled.

Because if you use it instead of assert, the enforce has just 
detected a bug, so it's just doing the sane thing to join that 
cases: stop the execution because the process is entering UB.

> And no, keeping the check or introducing UB are not the only 
> sensible options.

Just to understand, as I've already asked: do we aim at UB that 
guarantees no memory corruptions?

/Paolo