DIP1028 - Rationale for accepting as is

[ag0aep6g]

On 22.05.20 19:54, Atila Neves wrote:
> Right. And the point I was trying to make wasn't "look at what I did, 
> it's cool". No, what I did was dumb. So dumb it took you no time at all 
> to point out one of my mistakes. My point is that the result of making 
> declarations implicity @system instead of @safe would make people just 
> slap @safe on them without really thinking about it to get their code to 
> compile. Like I did.

Now you have accepted a DIP that does the dumb thing automatically. How 
is that any better?

[...]
>> If we don't care about the guarantees of @safe as long as you are 
>> using C libraries, why are we bothering at all with any of this?
> 
> We care. Annotations become explicit. Do I think this is ideal? No.

"Annotations become explicit." - What now? I probably misunderstand that 
sentence, but DIP 1028 does not require explicit annotations. That's why 
everyone is upset.