@trusted assumptions about @safe code

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On 5/27/20 8:52 AM, Stefan Koch wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 12:48:46 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer wrote:
>> On 5/27/20 2:36 AM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>>>> [...]
> 's relying on is actually true:
>>> [...]
>>
>> I think this is not the way to view it. @safe code still should do 
>> what it's supposed to do. It's not any harder *or any easier* to call 
>> @safe code.
>>
>> [...]
> 
> 
> 
> {
>    const i = cast(ssize_t) indexof(x, E);
>    if (i < 0 || i > x.dim)
>    {
>      // no luck.
>    }
>    else
>    {
>      index is in bounds so use it.
>    }
> }

Again, I also think this is valid @trusted code:

const i = indexof(x, E);

if(i != -1){
    // use it
}

or

if(i != x.length)
{
    // use it
}

depending on the spec for that function.

I don't think it's 100% necessary to be defensive on all semantics 
assuming they are not implemented properly.

People just aren't going to write what you wrote in the name of @safe.

They *could* write:

size_t i = indexof(x, E);
if(i < x.length) {
}

But most people aren't going to do that either.

-Steve