this post was submitted on 17 Sep 2024
36 points (95.0% liked)

C++

2057 readers
1 users here now

The center for all discussion and news regarding C++.

Rules

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
lysdexic@programming.dev
Nihili0@programming.dev
36
The empire of C++ strikes back with Safe C++ blueprint (www.theregister.com)
submitted 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago) by cmeerw@programming.dev to c/cpp@programming.dev
37 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg -4 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] FizzyOrange@programming.dev 6 points 10 months ago (1 children)

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++.

[–] Dark_Arc@social.packetloss.gg -3 points 10 months ago* (last edited 10 months ago)

That's a laudable difference /s. Using Rust is also an "opt-in" option.