DIP27 available for destruction

[Dicebot]

On Tuesday, 26 February 2013 at 20:42:57 UTC, Timon Gehr wrote:
> On 02/26/2013 06:09 PM, Dicebot wrote:
>> I like overall approach and think it really should be rule of 
>> a thumb
>> for designing D features - defining simple bullet-proof 
>> semantics and
>> making conclusions from it.
>> As opposed to syntax-based special case coverage.
>> ...
>
> Like it or not, that is what a compiler does.

Pardon me, how is compiler relevant here? Languages are designed 
for programmers in first place, not compilers.

>> 2) If you want to prohibit functions having an address, you 
>> need a
>> section explaining communication with C in details in regard 
>> to passing
>> function pointers.
>>
>
> That actually wouldn't change.

Why? Functions does not have an address according to this DIP. 
How will you pass a callback to C code then, special case for 
"extern(C)"?