Contradictory justification for status quo

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/27/15 1:07 PM, H. S. Teoh via Digitalmars-d wrote:
> What about this, if we're serious about @safe actually*guaranteeing*
> anything: after 2.067 is released, we reimplement @safe by making it
> reject every language construct by default.

I don't think this is practical. It's a huge amount of work over a long 
time.

Besides, even with that approach there's still no guarantee; 
implementation bugs are always possible in either approach.

I think the closest thing to what you're after is progress and 
preservation proofs on top of a core subset of the language. It would be 
great if somebody wanted to do this.


Andrei