DIP1028 - Rationale for accepting as is

[Atila Neves]

On Friday, 22 May 2020 at 17:33:11 UTC, rikki cattermole wrote:
> On 23/05/2020 5:07 AM, Atila Neves wrote:
>> [...]
> It is not about the linkage.
>
> The problem is solely does the compiler have the source to the 
> function body to verify it?

That's what I meant, sorry for not making it clearer.


>> [...]
>
> That is a failure of the language that should be resolved.

And how do you suggest we fix it?

> One of the arguments that has been brought up (although I don't 
> remember if it made its way to the N.G.) is that if you don't 
> have the body, can a function /even/ be @safe?

Yes.

>> [...]
>
> You might, but that doesn't give the compiler the right to do 
> so by default. This a decision for a skilled programmer to make.

They still can (and should). The DIP is about changing the 
default.

>> [...]
>
> No.
>
> We simply do not agree, nor do I expect for us to come to terms 
> on it anytime soon.

I meant "did I explain myself well enough that now you understand 
where I'm coming from, even though you might not ultimately 
agree?".