Is @safe still a work-in-progress?

[jmh530]

On Friday, 17 August 2018 at 14:26:07 UTC, H. S. Teoh wrote:
> [...]
>
> And that is exactly why the whole implementation of @safe is 
> currently rather laughable. By blacklisting rather than 
> whitelisting, we basically open the door wide open to loopholes 
> -- anything that we haven't thought of yet could potentially be 
> a @safe-breaking combination, and we wouldn't know until 
> somebody discovers and reports it.
>
> Sadly, it seems there is little interest in reimplementing 
> @safe to use whitelisting instead of blacklisting.
>
>
> T

Fundamentally, I see it as a good idea. Walter has talked about 
how important memory safety is for D. People thinking their @safe 
code is safe is a big problem when that turns out to not be the 
case. Imagine the black eye D would have if a company was hacked 
because of something like this?

IMO, the problem is that you can't just replace @safe as it is 
now. You could introduce something like @whitelist or 
@safewhitelist and begin implementing it, but it would probably 
be some time before it could replace @safe. Like when @whitelist 
is only breaking unsafe code.