cmeerw to C++English · edit-27 months agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square37linkfedilinkarrow-up138arrow-down12cross-posted to: programming[email protected]
arrow-up136arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comcmeerw to C++English · edit-27 months agomessage-square37linkfedilinkcross-posted to: programming[email protected]
minus-squareDark Arc@social.packetloss.gglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3arrow-down7·7 months agoIf a “safe C++” proposal truly proposes a safe subset, then yes your C++ code would have to opt-in to doing unsafe things. For the purposes of this discussion of a safe subset … the point is moot.
minus-squareFizzyOrangelinkfedilinkarrow-up7arrow-down1·7 months agoIt’s not moot. The Safe C++ is opt-in to safety. It has to be because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with existing C++.
minus-squareDark Arc@social.packetloss.gglinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up2arrow-down5·edit-27 months agoThat’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.
deleted by creator
If a “safe C++” proposal truly proposes a safe subset, then yes your C++ code would have to opt-in to doing unsafe things. For the purposes of this discussion of a safe subset … the point is moot.
It’s not moot. The Safe C++ is opt-in to safety. It has to be because otherwise it wouldn’t be compatible with existing C++.
That’s a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an “opt-in” option.