Safe mode in D?

[Maxim Fomin]

On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 09:26:53 UTC, Max Samukha wrote:
> On Saturday, 19 October 2013 at 08:45:05 UTC, Maxim Fomin wrote:
>
>> Actually aggregate name of collection was "(collection of 
>> memory
>> errors, type  system breakages and other cases to shoot your 
>> foot
>> provided by bugzilla issues, me and other people)".
>
> And we are back to square one - misusing extern(C) and 
> reflection to call the constructor as you showed in #13 does 
> not belong in that collection.

OK, you can remove extern(c) trick (however, it is not clear, why 
it shouldn't be counted as a type system hole) and you still have 
"reflection hole".

I came up with the code in response to Andrei who said that 
constructor control flow is "primitive but quite adequate" and 
which "is already implemented and works". What "primitive but 
quite adequate" does mean is subjective, but it does not really 
prevent from what it is suppose to prevent. Of course in this 
case you do not corrupt memory or write to immutable (I am 
telling this for the third time). The point was made why would 
you have such constraint if it is easily avoidable? How much 
sense is in the constraint which does not provide real value 
(except probably as an exercise in implementing abstract 
programming theories from academia) nor is properly reinforced?