confusing (buggy?) closure behaviour

[Zoran Isailovski]

BCS Wrote:

> Reply to Zoran,
> 
> > I don't think it is restrictive if the compiler prevented a situation
> > that would otherwise lead to a run-time error anyway, or worse, weird
> > and confusing run-time behavior. In my case, if the compiler couldn't
> > SAFELY handle a reference to the argument n outside the enclosing
> > function, then, IMO, RETURNING it (but not otherwise using it) should
> > be flagged a compilation error. Admittedly, detecting this is a bit
> > more involved for the compiler, but not at all restrictive for the
> > user.
> > 
> 
> D2.0 handles it all correctly. D1.0 follows the "hear is a gun, there is 
> your foot" mentality with regards to this. In general D is *not* a safe language 
> and that is by intent.
> 
> 
Oh... I've got the wrong impression from the papers about D. (But then, why would someone design an *unsafe* language *by intention*??? For that, we've got C and C++, don't we?)

Anyway, I've been looking for a modern and *safe* language, but without the overkill of a Java VM or .NET runtime. My hope was with D, but you seem to be convincing me otherwise...

Does the "D is unsafe by intention" relate to D2.0, too?