DIP1028 - Rationale for accepting as is

[Clarice]

On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 19:44:00 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Monday, 25 May 2020 at 19:35:04 UTC, Clarice wrote:
>>
>> 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.
>
> Yes, that's Walter's current plan. I am hoping that he'll 
> change his mind about allowing un-annotated FFIs to be assumed 
> @safe, but even if he doesn't, having the compiler print a 
> warning will allow those of us who care about safety to find 
> them and handle them properly.

I'm still unsure which implementation is the right one, but I 
think this middle-ground you're attempting to get merged is a 
good compromise. So, again, thank you!