Rationale for accepting DIP 1028 as is

[Timon Gehr]

On 27.05.20 12:51, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 5/27/2020 3:01 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
>> This is clearly not possible, exactly because the old @safe rules are 
>> stronger. 
> 
> Thank you. We can agree on something.
> ...

I am not sure if you noticed that I agree with most of your points, just 
not about their relevance to the topic at hand.

>> But why exactly should API breakage not count?
> 
> I've addressed exactly this a dozen times or more, to you

No. You did not. I went over all of your responses to my posts again to 
make sure. Why are you making this claim?

I haven't made API breakage a central point to any of my previous posts 
and you did not address any of my criticism in any depth. As far as I 
can tell, the only point you engaged with was that @trusted is not 
greenwashing.

> and others. 

I don't think you did, but I am not going to check.

> Repeating myself has become pointless.
> 
> It's fine to disagree with me. Argue that point. But don't say I didn't 
> address it.

As far as I remember, you did not address this specific point, but if I 
had to extrapolate your response from previous points you made I would 
expect your opinion to be that implicitly broken APIs should be fixed by 
universal manual review of not explicitly annotated functions and that 
this is better than the compiler catching it for you because this way 
only people who are competent to judge which annotation should be there 
will notice that it is missing.