@trusted attribute should be replaced with @trusted blocks
IGotD-
nise at nise.com
Thu Jan 16 17:15:28 UTC 2020
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 15:29:58 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad
wrote:
> On Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 15:12:07 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>
> It wasn't really clear what "IGotD-" meant. Although I suspect
> he was ironic, but if taken literally it would be fair to say
> that what D has is pretty much the same as this: assume all
> code is written as memory safe code and add an escape that
> allows for writing unsafe constructs adorned with a comment
> that says that code is trusted... except you also need to mark
> functions as unsafe. Not really a big shift from Rust, except
> Rust provides dedicated typing-constructs for doing unsafe
> operations like dealing with uninitialized variables.
Yes, kind of.
It similar what ag0aep6g described in alternative 3.
On Thursday, 16 January 2020 at 16:56:17 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
> 3) @safe code can contain @trusted parts (blocks/lambdas).
> Those @trusted parts may rely on the surrounding @safe code for
> safety. The @safe parts are effectively in a third state:
> Mechanical checks are performed, but manual checks are still
> needed to verify the interaction with the @trusted parts.
but the difference is that we don't need @trusted. We can let
@system rely on the safety of the surrounding safe block. I can't
see how this really different from having that extra @trusted
attribute. I might have forgotten to tell that we need this extra
@system {} block.
More information about the Digitalmars-d
mailing list