Memory safe in D

[Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole]

On 30/03/2024 4:03 PM, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 3/18/2024 4:19 PM, Richard (Rikki) Andrew Cattermole wrote:
>> On 19/03/2024 11:46 AM, Walter Bright wrote:
>>> If one doesn't do DFA, then I will be subjected to endless bug 
>>> reports where people find a case that needs DFA to resolve.
>>
>> If anyone wants evidence of this, look no further than @live.
>>
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21923
>>
>> https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=21854
>>
>> A memory analysis technique that requires DFA, but doesn't as it 
>> wasn't fully thought out and too specific to it.
> 
> D is a complex language, and @live has bugs in it for some constructs. 
> That doesn't mean DFA is the wrong tool for the job, it is the only tool 
> for it and the problems are routine problems that can be fixed.

Yes, all I am getting at is a dedicated DFA that isn't specific to @live 
would be a better solution.

If we really really want @live to stick around (I have other ideas on 
how to replace it while getting guarantees which @live cannot provide), 
rewriting it on my proposed semantic 4 would be a better solution long term.