Vision for the D language - stabilizing complexity?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 07/12/2016 03:23 AM, deadalnix wrote:
> On Tuesday, 12 July 2016 at 05:33:00 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> Amaury failed to produce an example to support his point, aside from a
>> rehash of a bug report from 2013 that is virtually fixed. Do you have
>> any?
>>
>
> Finger moon. I presented maybe 5 exemple of what I'm talking about
> already and it is still not enough. You guys keep wanting to discuss
> every single example to death to avoid doing the hard thinking.
>
>> I think we're in good shape with what we have; mutable has too much
>> freedom and it's good to get away without it.
>>
>
> True but once again, finger, moon, etc...

Indeed I'm not the sharpest tool in the shed, and since it's already 
been established I'm the idiot and you're the wise man (congratulations 
- surely enough the great work to substantiate that is very soon to 
follow) in the proverb, I hope you'll allow me one more pedestrian question.

So I've been looking through this thread for the five examples of what 
you're talking about (which to my mind is "@safe is just a convention") 
and the closest I could find is your post on 
http://forum.dlang.org/post/iysrtqzytdnrxsqtfwvk@forum.dlang.org.

So there you discuss the inconsistency of "alias" which as far as I 
understand has nothing to do with safety. Then we have:

enum E { A = 1, B = 2 }
E bazinga = A | B;
final switch (bazinga) { case A: ... case B: ... } // Enjoy !

which I pasted with minor changes here: 
https://dpaste.dzfl.pl/b4f84374c3ae. I'm unclear how that interacts with 
@safe. It could, if the language would allow executing unsafe code after 
the switch. But it doesn't. Could you please clarify? And could you 
please point to the other examples?


Thanks,

Andrei