i want my bounty!

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 15 December 2014 at 10:52:04 UTC, Artem Tarasov wrote:
> Fair point. The trouble I have with D in particular is its 
> definition of 'quality'. For example, I'm unable to consider 
> THIS 'quality effort': 
> hhttps://github.com/tom-tan/phobos/commit/c7e99d9baff0749dfb334db322c5471b21a2539d 
> - it's simply fighting with the unintelligent compiler.

For standard library quality means not only robustness of 
implementation itself but also taking delicate care of things 
like backwards compatibility and hiding as much pain as possible 
from the end user. All the @safe commits fall in the latter 
domain - it may expose deficiency in compiler / language 
definition (or both) but waiting until better compiler is not 
something Phobos users would appreciate.

Though speaking specifically about @safe it is exactly the very 
point of standard library runtime to contain such weird hacks - 
so that user code can totally avoid resorting to those. Many 
workarounds are because of compiler deficiency indeed but   still 
many are expected and needed.

By the way this specific commit looks suspicious to me :) 
Wrapping whole functions (other than extern(C)) in @trusted is 
rarely a good idea. But I haven't been reviewing Phobos pulls for 
last ~2 months so don't know the context.