Can we just have struct inheritence already?
Walter Bright
newshound2 at digitalmars.com
Thu Jun 13 07:36:54 UTC 2019
On 6/11/2019 11:16 AM, Manu wrote:
> You've missed my entire point. I understand memory safety is a thing,
> I'm saying I don't care for @safe defined that narrowly. Common sense
> would suggest that a "safe" function would alarm you to a blindingly
> obvious crash, and I don't care that that crash is specifically a
> memory safety violation or not. You can argue semantics, but nobody
> that's not a language lawyer who hangs out on forums like this would
> expect that.
When you get into details of how a language works, you put on the language
lawyer hat, not your hand-wavy hat.
There's no other way.
Every science/engineering discipline finds it necessary to precisely nail down
the meanings of terms, and not rely on hand-wavy definitions what prevent
communication between engineers. For example, Boeing has a specific definition
of what failing a load test is. Sounds silly, but there's a very good reason for
it. Architectural drawings have very specific fonts that must be used. Again,
good reasons.
(C++, now there's a language made for language lawyers. There are so many, many
finicky rules. I have no idea how you can be successful with C++ and not be a
language lawyer. How can you even talk to another C++ programmer?)
The D spec does have a problem with imprecise use of language. It's a PROBLEM
and it needs fixing.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list