@trust is an encapsulation method, not an escape

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 23:21:50 UTC, weaselcat wrote:
> On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 23:02:54 UTC, Zach the Mystic 
> wrote:
>
>> No, at least three of us, Steven, H.S. Teoh and myself have 
>> confirmed that we've moved beyond requesting @trusted blocks. 
>> We are no longer requesting them. We are requesting *@system* 
>> blocks, which can only appear in @trusted and @system 
>> functions. Any unsafe code appearing in a @trusted function 
>> which is not inside a @system block is an error. We've changed 
>> the name, but I think it will make a world of difference 
>> regarding how you will look at it. Marking '@system' code 
>> inside a @trusted function is exactly what is requested. Your 
>> message about '@trusted' being only acceptable as an interface 
>> has been heard. There will be no @trusted blocks, only @system 
>> blocks, which are the exact same thing, except they can only 
>> appear in @trusted and @system functions.
>>
>> This solution appeals to me greatly. It pinpoints precisely 
>> where unsafe code can generate; it catches unintended safety 
>> violations in all @trusted code outside @system blocks, as 
>> requested by many people so far; it makes systems programming 
>> highly visible, with redundancy at the function signature and 
>> at the unsafe code itself. I really think it's spot on!
>
> this sounds interesting, is anyone going to make a DIP for it?

It was Teoh's idea. Maybe he should have the honors?