Contradictory justification for status quo

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 27 February 2015 at 21:09:51 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=12822
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13442
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13534
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13536
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=13537
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14136
>> >	https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14138
>> >
>> >There are probably other holes that we haven't discovered yet.

I wanted to say that besides the first two bugs I tried to 
address, none of the rest in your list involves more than just 
telling the compiler to check for this or that, whatever the case 
may be, per bug. Maybe blanket use of `@trusted` to bypass an 
over-cautious compiler is the only real danger I personally am 
able to worry about.

I simplified my thinking by dividing everything into "in 
function" and "outside of function". So I ask, within a function, 
what do I need to know to ensure everything is safe? And then, 
from outside a function, what do I need to know to ensure 
everything is safe? The function has inputs and outputs, sources 
and destinations.