Getting action on your favorite D issues

[Paul Backus]

On Saturday, 6 June 2020 at 14:02:54 UTC, ag0aep6g wrote:
>
> I had thought about special-casing bool there, precisely 
> because of the issue at hand. I almost wrote that only 0 and 1 
> are safe values for bool.
>
> I decided against it, because it seems unlikely that creating 
> values beyond 1 will be banned in @safe code. It seems more 
> likely that the implementation gets changed to treat all 
> non-zero values as true. At least that's what I extrapolate 
> from Walter's position on void initialization in general (see 
> <https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2260/files>).

It seems to me like (a) whether void initialization results in 
undefined behavior or merely unspecified values, and (b) whether 
bool values other than 0 and 1 are considered valid are 
independent questions. That is, it would be perfectly consistent 
to say that void initialization of int in @safe code is fine, 
because every 4-byte bit pattern represents a valid int, but 
void-initialization of bool in @safe code is no good, because 
many 1-byte bit patterns do not represent valid bools.