Discussion Thread: DIP 1028--Make @safe the Default--Final Review

[Timon Gehr]

On 08.04.20 17:56, Jonathan Marler wrote:
> On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 at 13:58:12 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 4/8/20 9:35 AM, aliak wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, 8 April 2020 at 13:09:33 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>>>> On 4/7/20 10:01 PM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> [...]
>>>
>>> It really feels like you and Timon are talking past each other based 
>>> on mixing up extern(C) declarations and extern(C) definitions?
>>
>> No, I think we both understand that difference. I actually understand 
>> the point of view of Timon and Jonathan and agree with that point of 
>> view, I just think the restriction isn't helpful, and is just going to 
>> cause busywork for no true benefit.
>>
> 
> Which Jonathan?  I'm on the side that if the compiler can verify it, it 
> should be @safe.  The extern'ness of a function seems to be orthogonal 
> as to whether it can be verified.  Having a function body seems to be 
> the primary criteria.
> 

To be very clear, Steven says the following is desirable to allow as a 
possibility:

---
module a;

extern(C) corrupt_memory()@system{
     // ...
}
---
---
module b;
extern(C) corrupt_memory()@safe;

void main()@safe{
     corrupt_memory();
}
---

A "prototype" is a function declaration without a function body.

Related: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/04/underhand_c_2015/