Destructor attribute inheritance, yea or nay?

[Igor Shirkalin via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 26 May 2017 at 17:17:39 UTC, Stanislav Blinov wrote:
> Destructors of derived classes are called implicitly on 
> finalization. The net effect is that such finalization adopts 
> the weakest set of attributes among all the destructors it 
> calls.
I'm sorry, I ment explicitly. I hope it is not possible.
>
> There are two sides of this problem: one is that we cannot have 
> deterministic destruction (i.e. manually allocate/free classes) 
> while keeping attribute inference: under current rules, 
> finalization has to be @system. This one can be tackled if the 
> language provided strict rules of attribute inheritance in 
> destructors.
>
> Another side, clearly demonstrated by my second post, is that 
> non-deterministic destruction cannot be @safe, period. Because 
> when GC collects and calls destructors, it calls all of them, 
> regardless of their @safe status, even when the collection is 
> triggered inside a @safe function.

Doesn't that mean if compiler can't call inherited destructor 
despite of GC it must be error?