DIP1028 - Rationale for accepting as is

[Bruce Carneal]

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 01:04:24 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 24.05.20 11:10, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/23/2020 11:26 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>>> I don't believe that you or any other competent programmer 
>>> greenwashes safety critical code.  Regardless, the safety 
>>> conscious must review their dependencies whatever default 
>>> applies.
>> 
>> That's the theory. But we do, for various reasons. I've seen 
>> it a lot over the years, at all levels of programming ability. 
>> It particularly happens when someone needs to get the code 
>> compiling and running, and the error message is perceived as a 
>> nuisance getting in the way.
>> 
>> We should be very careful about adding nuisances to the 
>> language that make it easier to greenwash than to do the job 
>> correctly.
>
> Implicit greenwashing by the compiler is a nuisance that makes 
> it harder to do the job correctly and easier to do the wrong 
> thing.

Yes, it would be a big nuisance.  Absent a change in the DIP the 
safety conscious who want to continue with D will try to back out 
the compiler lies as best they can: additional tooling, 
additional code review strictures, selective rewrites, ...

Not sure how that unfortunate future would play out exactly but 
it would not be pretty.  Much much better to fix the DIP.