@safe accessing of union members

[ag0aep6g]

On Wednesday, 17 March 2021 at 19:27:29 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> IIRC "code that expects only 0 or 1" includes things like the 
> GCC and LLVM backends, so it may be worth some additional 
> consideration, especially if we want D's bool to interface 
> correctly with C99 _Bool and/or C++ bool.

Oh, absolutely. I don't want to stop anyone from exploring the 
alternative.

I'm just saying allowing values above 1 can work (AFAICT), and 
it's what I expect Walter to favor. But I might well be wrong on 
both counts.