• XavierAP (9/9) Mar 09 2017 Andrei's 2010 book states that the default safety level can be
• Adam D. Ruppe (4/5) Mar 09 2017 Yes, you instead mark individual things @safe (or you can do a
• Jack Stouffer (3/12) Mar 09 2017 Don't know the history, but as recently as a week ago Andrei has
• XavierAP (2/4) Mar 09 2017 What behavior? Anyway my question is answered, thanks :)
• XavierAP (3/4) Mar 09 2017 What behavior is a rhetorical question, meaning that I don't
• Jack Stouffer (2/6) Mar 09 2017 Changing default behavior which results in incompatible code.
• XavierAP (4/12) Mar 09 2017 Aha of course I agree. No language wants to do this, it goes

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

Andrei's 2010 book states that the default safety level can be 
changed from  system to  safe by means of a -safe command line 
switch, in the case of the DMD compiler. Now I've tried it and 
it's not recognized.

Was this feature remove on purpose? I could imagine that.

The default safety keeps being  system, right?

PS I've found this old thread... I'm looking for a bit less long 
answer to read ;)
http://forum.dlang.org/thread/hcqb44$1nc9$1 digitalmars.com

Adam D. Ruppe <destructionator gmail.com> writes:

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 17:48:04 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
 Was this feature remove on purpose? I could imagine that.

Yes, you instead mark individual things  safe (or you can do a 
 safe { functions here } group or  safe: at the top of a scope).

this kinda sucks but alas.

Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:

On Thursday, 9 March 2017 at 17:48:04 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
 Andrei's 2010 book states that the default safety level can be 
 changed from  system to  safe by means of a -safe command line 
 switch, in the case of the DMD compiler. Now I've tried it and 
 it's not recognized.

 Was this feature remove on purpose? I could imagine that.

 The default safety keeps being  system, right?

 PS I've found this old thread... I'm looking for a bit less 
 long answer to read ;)
 http://forum.dlang.org/thread/hcqb44$1nc9$1 digitalmars.com

Don't know the history, but as recently as a week ago Andrei has 
argued against such behavior has balkanizing the community.

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 00:48:39 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 Don't know the history, but as recently as a week ago Andrei 
 has argued against such behavior has balkanizing the community.

What behavior? Anyway my question is answered, thanks :)

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:13:26 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
 What behavior? Anyway my question is answered, thanks :)

What behavior is a rhetorical question, meaning that I don't 
really want it to be answered 0;)

Jack Stouffer <jack jackstouffer.com> writes:

On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:13:26 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
 On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 00:48:39 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 Don't know the history, but as recently as a week ago Andrei 
 has argued against such behavior has balkanizing the community.

 What behavior? Anyway my question is answered, thanks :)

Changing default behavior which results in incompatible code.

XavierAP <n3minis-git yahoo.es> writes:

On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:17:57 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 01:13:26 UTC, XavierAP wrote:
 On Friday, 10 March 2017 at 00:48:39 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
 Don't know the history, but as recently as a week ago Andrei 
 has argued against such behavior has balkanizing the 
 community.

 What behavior? Anyway my question is answered, thanks :)

 Changing default behavior which results in incompatible code.

Aha of course I agree. No language wants to do this, it goes 
beyond what is referred as community. But yeah look what happened 
to Python 3.x