UNSAFE, indeed! But life is.

[Georg Wrede]

nick wrote:
 > Then there is the specific matter of the /in/ keyword being easily
 > broken by a c-style pointer. There may be other high-level features
 > that are compromised by low-level features. That has to be looked
 > into.

Actually, the mere fact that a language purports to be _both_ high level 
and _to-the-metal_ (as D does), is a _sufficient_cause_ of such avenues 
of integrity compromise.

We simply can't _enforce_ e.g. constness in such a language. (Hell, if 
we tried all we could, someone could still circumvent it with an asm block!)

I'd be as bold as to say this goes for _all_ aspects of /secure/ or 
/robust/ language constructs.

----

In light of this, maybe we should get humble, and just accept the fact 
that const can at most be an expression of wish -- but as such, a very 
useful one?