Shouldn't safety be the default.

[bachmeier]

On Tuesday, 26 December 2023 at 19:32:56 UTC, Paulo Pinto wrote:

>> If D had been safe by default, this would not have been a big 
>> issue, even for those of us that don't care about safe by 
>> default. But to force this on us *entirely because you don't 
>> want to add a -safe switch to the compiler* is completely 
>> unreasonable. (The compiler switch was off the table, but the 
>> way you tested out the earlier DIP was by *using a compiler 
>> switch*.)
>
> On which forum post am I advocating against -safe switch?

Not you, but that was the safe by default proposal. It can be 
done at no cost, but it's hard for improvements that come without 
cost to get traction around here.

Similar to the LTS discussions. All they needed to do was label 
some of the releases they were making as "not LTS" and they'd 
have solved a major problem at no cost. More than six months have 
passed and there are occasional discussions of "editions" that 
will solve the same problem. Maybe before 2030.