misplaced @trust?

[Steven Schveighoffer via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/5/15 2:43 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:

> The idea is that while we would like the compiler to mechanically verify
> *everything*, in practice there are some things that the compiler simply
> cannot verify. Since those remaining things require human effort to
> verify and humans are prone to errors, we would like to limit the scope
> of those things by confining them inside @trusted functions, which,
> ideally, would be few in number and limited in scope. Everything else
> should be relegated to @safe functions, where we *require* completely
> automated verification by the compiler.

What's the difference between an internal scope and a separate function 
scope? That is, a static internal function can simply be a private 
module function and have the same effect.

I don't see how your proposal is more safe than mine, or that somehow I 
can expect a @safe function never to have manually verified code that it 
uses.

-Steve