Contradictory justification for status quo

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 27 February 2015 at 14:02:58 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> Safety is good to have, and the simple litmus test is if you 
> slap @safe: at the top of all modules and you use no @trusted 
> (or of course use it correctly), you should have memory safety, 
> guaranteed.
>
> A feature that is safe except for certain constructs is 
> undesirable.

It seems like you're agreeing with my general idea of "going the 
whole hog".

> Generally having a large number of corner cases that require 
> special language constructs to address is a Bad Sign.

But D inherits C's separate compilation model. All these cool 
function and parameter attributes (pure, @safe, return ref, etc.) 
could be kept hidden and just used and they would Just Work if D 
didn't have to accommodate separation compilation. From my 
perspective, the only "Bad Sign" is that D has to navigate the 
tradeoff between:

* concise function signatures
* accurate communication between functions
* enabling separate compilation

It's like you have to sacrifice one to get the other two. 
Naturally I'm not keen on this, so I rush to see how far 
attribute inference for all functions can be taken. Then Dicebot 
suggests automated .di file generation with statically verified 
matching binaries:

http://forum.dlang.org/post/otejdbgnhmyvbyaxatsk@forum.dlang.org

The point is that I don't feel the ominous burden of a Bad Sign 
here, because of the inevitability of this conflict.