digitalmars.D - UNSAFE, indeed! But life is.
Georg Wrede <georg.wrede nospam.org> writes:
nick wrote:Then there is the specific matter of the /in/ keyword being easily broken by a c-style pointer. There may be other high-level features that are compromised by low-level features. That has to be looked into.Actually, the mere fact that a language purports to be _both_ high level and _to-the-metal_ (as D does), is a _sufficient_cause_ of such avenues of integrity compromise. We simply can't _enforce_ e.g. constness in such a language. (Hell, if we tried all we could, someone could still circumvent it with an asm block!) I'd be as bold as to say this goes for _all_ aspects of /secure/ or /robust/ language constructs. ---- In light of this, maybe we should get humble, and just accept the fact that const can at most be an expression of wish -- but as such, a very useful one?
Feb 21 2006
"Craig Black" <cblack ara.com> writes:
In light of this, maybe we should get humble, and just accept the fact that const can at most be an expression of wish -- but as such, a very useful one?Agreed. I like const and use it throughout my C++ code. And sometimes I do circumvent it, but only when I know exactly what I'm doing. const being a "hollow promise" does not bother me. I like the fact that I can break the rules if I need to. -Craig
Feb 21 2006