Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 07/12/2016 02:37 PM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 14:17:30 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Indeed I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and since it's already
>> been established I'm the idiot and you're the wise man
>> (congratulations - surely enough the great work to substantiate that
>> is very soon to follow) in the proverb, I hope you'll allow me one
>> more pedestrian question.
>>
>
> Proverb are not meant to be interpreted literally.

Also proverbs are not licenses for people to be jerks.

>> So I've been looking through this thread for the five examples of what
>> you're talking about (which to my mind is "@safe is just a
>> convention") and the closest I could find is your post on
>> http://forum.dlang.org/post/iysrtqzytdnrxsqtfwvk@forum.dlang.org.
>>
>> So there you discuss the inconsistency of "alias" which as far as I
>> understand has nothing to do with safety. Then we have:
>>
>> enum E { A = 1, B = 2 }
>> E bazinga = A | B;
>> final switch (bazinga) { case A: ... case B: ... } // Enjoy !
>>
>> which I pasted with minor changes here:
>> https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b4f84374c3ae. I'm unclear how that interacts
>> with @safe. It could, if the language would allow executing unsafe
>> code after the switch. But it doesn't. Could you please clarify? And
>> could you please point to the other examples?
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Andrei
>
> My point has nothing to do with safety, and this is why various example
> have nothing to do with safety. Safety was an example. The enum/final
> switch thing was another. The alias thing again one more.

Where are the others?


Andrei