Replying to "Simplification of @trusted" - D Programming Language Discussion Forum

Index » General » Simplification of @trusted » Post reply

Warning: the post you are replying to is from 3 years ago (June 17, 2021).

Posting to General in reply to rikki cattermole

Your name:Your email address (?):Subject:Message:

On Thursday, 17 June 2021 at 14:04:30 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
>
> On 18/06/2021 1:54 AM, ag0aep6g wrote:
>>> Ok, but it is not _realistic_ to think that D users will not 
>>> write code that they think is _good enough_ for their 
>>> purpose. Since there is no way to verify that they  adhere to 
>>> idealistic principles, it won't happen.
>> 
>> I think there's almost a consensus that @trusted isn't quite 
>> good enough, exactly because no one can be bothered to use it 
>> as intended. That's why the incremental improvements mentioned 
>> above are being worked on. I don't think anyone is working on 
>> redesigning (or reinterpreting) the whole thing from the 
>> ground up. And I would expect strong push-back from Walter if 
>> someone tried.
>
> What might be a good thing to have is make the compiler able to 
> produce an audit report for @trusted code. Along with a list of 
> all @trusted symbols in source code (not generated).
>
> You can diff the list to see what symbols are added, and ensure 
> somebody audits it at PR time with the help of the CI.

Enable Markdown

Top | Forum index | About this forum

Forums

Forums