Can you find out where the code goes wrong?

[Don]

Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> Robert Fraser wrote:
>>> grauzone wrote:
>>>> That is, if SafeD
>>>> is really meant to be more than a vaporware-joke.
>>>
>>> It's currently implemented in D2 using the -safe switch, AFAIK
>>
>> Currently it prevents you from using inline asm, but it doesn't stop 
>> you  from using pointers. So it's still 80% vapourware.
> 
> It shouldn't stop one from using pointers as long as uses can be 
> checked. (Many uses are checkable.)
> 
> It's hard to find a good balance between announcing planned features 
> early so as they're open for discussion and ideas, and causing 
> frustration around unimplemented ideas. Probably there's some erring on 
> the side of being overenthusiastic about sharing information about stuff 
> well before it's been implemented.

Well, there's been a fair number of easter eggs, too...
In the latest release, for example, 'writefln' and 'writeln' are 
magical: you can include them in a CTFE function without stopping it 
from executing at compile time. (They don't _do_ anything, but...).

I think it's impossible to avoid this situation in a language where the 
development process is so open and compiler releases are so frequent.
(and where Walter tries to do so much simultaneously <g>).