Shouldn't casting an object to void* be considered @safe?

[Dennis]

On Sunday, 15 December 2019 at 09:15:39 UTC, Joseph Rushton 
Wakeling wrote:
> Which brings us back to the start of the discussion: @safe 
> checks are not just about the strictest definition of memory 
> safety, but also about actions that open up a path to unsafe 
> behaviour unless they are carefully validated.

You can demonstrate that by giving a piece of @trusted code that 
is correct when @safe casting to cast(void*) is disallowed and 
incorrect when it is allowed. My guess is that you haven't done 
that, because cast(void*) doesn't actually open up any paths to 
unsafe behavior that weren't previously there. I love to be 
proven wrong about this though.

> You may not accept the principle but that is the reality of the 
> spec.

What part of the spec are you referring to? I'm mostly concerned 
with:

> Memory safety does not imply that code is portable, uses only 
> sound programming practices, is free of byte order 
> dependencies, or other bugs. It is focussed only on eliminating 
> memory corruption possibilities.

https://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html#limitations