[OffTopic] A vulnerability postmortem on Network Security Services

[Tejas]

On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 19:35:25 UTC, bachmeier wrote:
> On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 17:21:58 UTC, Tejas wrote:
>> On Thursday, 2 December 2021 at 17:11:09 UTC, Paul Backus 
>> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>
>> Hmm... not a fan of that solution
>>
>> Still feel marking `extern (C)` stuff as `@trusted` is better.
>>
>> Introducing a new feature for such a fundamental, yet obvious 
>> thing seems overkill, IMHO. Forcing not `@safe` stuff to be 
>> annotated seems better to me.
>
> Sure, if you don't use extern(C) much and you don't care about 
> everyone that uses it extensively in their code moving to other 
> languages, go ahead and do that. It's not realistic to break 
> that much code written in a language that was designed from the 
> start to be closely tied to C. It wouldn't be hard to add a 
> -safe compilation flag, but apparently nobody's into that, 
> they'd prefer to break code others have written.

I think the problem with adding new compiler flags is that it 
doubles the amount of configs that have to be checked/tested for 
from then on-wards (at least that's what I was told when I asked 
if it was possible to do away with the `short/byte` implicit 
conversion to `int` via a compiler flag).

Rather go with Adam's `default(safe)` than a new compiler flag, 
if that's what it'll come down to.