Contradictory justification for status quo

[deadalnix via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 27 February 2015 at 21:09:51 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> No, what I meant was that in an "assume safe unless proven 
> otherwise"
> system, there's bound to be holes because the combinatorial 
> explosion of
> feature combinations makes it almost certain there's *some* 
> unsafe
> combination we haven't thought of yet that the compiler 
> currently
> accepts. And it may be a long time before we discover this flaw.
>


To be back to the original problem, there are various instances 
of:
  - A is safe and useful in safe code, let's not making it unsafe !
  - B is safe and useful in safe code, let's not making it unsafe !

Yet A and B may be unsafe used together, so one of them should be 
made unsafe. You ends up in the same situation than exposed in 
the first post.