is this considered inconsistency?

[mw]

On Sunday, 21 March 2021 at 22:56:43 UTC, mw wrote:
> On Sunday, 21 March 2021 at 21:22:16 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
>> On Sunday, 21 March 2021 at 17:01:27 UTC, mw wrote:
>>>> There's also a point to be made that the implicit conversion 
>>>> from signed to unsigned integers should not be allowed, 
>>>> that's a separate discussion.
>>>
>>> Indeed, this shouldn't be allowed, bite by this a number of 
>>> times. Is there a DIP on this already?
>>
>> There have been proposals to change the integer promotion 
>> rules in the past, but they've been rejected because Walter 
>> wants to keep them compatible with C, to make porting C code 
>> to D easier.
>
> "compatible with C" as a goal of D?
>
> Then why we need D? C++ has been there already 😎
>
>
> Instead of let a few people decide, how about also let the 
> users decide?
>
> I have read -dipxxx switches are kind of previews (not formally 
> in to the language).
>
> How about add a -dip-no-explicit-conversion preview, but ask 
> the users permission to send their actuall complier build flags 
> (of their daily work) back to dlang.org, and let that 
> statistics be part of the decision factor?
>
> E.g, if 99.999% of the users always have that flag turned on, 
> why not have that feature into the language?


Typo:
-dip-no-implicit-conversion