Rationale for accepting DIP 1028 as is

[Walter Bright]

On 5/27/2020 2:34 AM, Bastiaan Veelo wrote:
> On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 09:09:58 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
>> On 5/26/2020 11:20 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>>> I'm not at all concerned with legacy non-compiling code of this nature.
>>
>> Apparently you agree it is not an actual problem.
> 
> Really? I don't know if you really missed the point being made, or you're being 
> provocative. Both seem unlikely to me.

His argument was:

"Currently a machine checked @safe function calling an unannotated extern C 
routine will error out during compilation. This is great as the C routine was 
not machine checked, and generally can not be checked.  Post 1028, IIUC, the 
compilation will go through without complaint.  This seems quite clear.  What am 
I missing?"

I replied that it was unlikely that such legacy code existed.

He replied that he was not concerned about it.

I.e. working legacy code is not going break.