Motive behind !empty() with front() instead of Optional front()

[Paul Backus]

On Tuesday, 30 March 2021 at 00:51:44 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> We investigated a few other possibilities, such as returning a 
> pointer to the next element or null. But that has problems 
> related to safety and escaping pointers.

Does -preview=dip1000 help at all with these issues? If so, might 
be worth revisiting.