[OffTopic] A vulnerability postmortem on Network Security Services

Steven Schveighoffer schveiguy at gmail.com
Wed Dec 8 15:46:31 UTC 2021

On 12/3/21 10:23 PM, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 04/12/2021 3:03 PM, bachmeier wrote:
>> I understand. It was during this conversation that I realized D has no 
>> strategy that will allow it to evolve (and no strategy to develop such 
>> a strategy). The cost of making an extreme change like safe by default 
>> is that you have to accept a compiler flag or some other compromise. 
>> That seems to be off the table, which makes it hard to see D being 
>> much different in 2041 than it is now.
> In this particular case, I say break my code.
> Quite literally one small change, no function body? @system and we would 
> have supported the DIP.

I proposed [during the 
that you can assume `extern(C)` functions are `@safe` as long as they 
are mangled differently. I think that would both solve the problems 
people had, and allow `extern(C)` to be safe by default.

Walter seemingly ignored it, but silently [hated 
it](https://forum.dlang.org/post/ra7958$2r8v$1@digitalmars.com), so I 
don't see that happening.


More information about the Digitalmars-d mailing list