dip1000 and preview in combine to cause extra safety errors

[Timon Gehr]

On 09.06.22 08:53, Walter Bright wrote:
> The point of @safe by default for C declarations was:
> 
> 1. so that we would not be deluged with complaints about breaking 
> existing code
> ...

It really does not help much with that. In addition, it would slap 
`@safe` on code that is not actually memory safe and was not intended to 
be. That's also breakage.

> 2. so people would use it
> 
> What people *will* do with C unsafe by default is:
> 
> 1. slap `@trusted:` at the beginning and go on their merry way,

This is not what I will do, but they can of course just do that. It's 
very visible in code review.

> and nothing was accomplished except annoying people

Your are predicting that some people will explicitly do the wrong and 
lazy thing, hence the compiler should do the wrong and lazy thing 
implicitly by default. This just makes no sense. What's the big harm in 
annoying lazy people slightly more? It's not like they won't complain 
loudly about `@safe` by default in any case. May as well do it right or 
not at all.