Maybe D is right about GC after all !

[rjframe]

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 08:36:13 +0000, codephantom wrote:

> btw. I'd like to see D 3.x introduce a breaking change and make @safe
> the default, instead of @system. I think that would be huge boost for D
> going forward.
> 
> How practical that is, I would have no idea.
> 
> But as an 'end user' of D, I would prefer to have to explicitely mark
> code as @system, rather than have to explicitely mark code as @safe, and
> therefore having to find tools that help me check whether I 'forgot' to
> do that.


I used to agree. For people that use @safe religiously, a tool could 
easily fix the breakage (it's just a toggle), and for most others the tool 
could still fix everything, though with a little more work. But it's so 
easy to do this now without breaking anything.

```
module mymodule; @safe:

@system
class ABC {
    int func(int* p, size_t len) {
        return p[0] + p[1];
    }
}

string thisIsSafe() { return "Yay!"; }
```

I actually like requiring the explicit @safe at the module declaration 
now; it tells other programmers "I intend this module to be memory- at safe"; 
you just need a quick grep for @system and @trusted to find exceptions.

Sure, that expression of intention wouldn't be necessary if it were 
default, but I don't really see the benefit in changing it now. People who 
care will add the attribute, people that don't care, won't; knowing the 
programmer's intention can be useful, too.