@[email protected] to [email protected]English • edit-23 months agoThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.comexternal-linkmessage-square36fedilinkarrow-up137arrow-down12cross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
arrow-up135arrow-down1external-linkThe empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprintwww.theregister.com@[email protected] to [email protected]English • edit-23 months agomessage-square36fedilinkcross-posted to: [email protected][email protected]
minus-squareDark ArclinkfedilinkEnglish-4•3 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-square@[email protected]linkfedilink6•3 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 ArclinkfedilinkEnglish-3•edit-23 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.