DIP1028 - Rationale for accepting as is

[Clarice]

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 17:31:29 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> Even if you did review your code *and* all of your 
> dependencies, if you did it before DIP 1028 was accepted (i.e., 
> any time in the last 10 years or so), you may have deliberately 
> left external @system functions un-annotated, because @system 
> was the default.
>
> In fact, I *know* that people have done this, because I've been 
> running my patched version of the compiler [1] against the dmd, 
> druntime, and phobos codebases, and I have found an enormous 
> number of such un-annotated declarations. Here are just a few 
> of them in druntime:
>
> https://github.com/dlang/druntime/pull/3117
>
> Lots and lots of projects in the D ecosystem are going to need 
> similar patches to be compatible with DIP 1028. And I don't 
> think it's realistic to expect people to make these changes 
> without some kind of help from the tooling.
>
> [1] https://github.com/dlang/dmd/pull/11176

I really appreciate your contributions. (The latter of which will 
be quite handy.) But isn't the whole point of Walter's 
implementation of @safe-as-default is that FFIs are going to be 
assumed @safe? So they should still compile; that is unless 
you're referring to the need for re-evaluation.