Rationale for accepting DIP 1028 as is

[Bruce Carneal]

On Wednesday, 27 May 2020 at 02:58:16 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 5/26/20 12:31 PM, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>> Currently a machine checked @safe function calling an 
>> unannotated extern C routine will error out during 
>> compilation. This is great as the C routine was not machine 
>> checked, and generally can not be checked.  Post 1028, IIUC, 
>> the compilation will go through without complaint.  This seems 
>> quite clear.  What am I missing?
>
> If that's the case, it's the death of DIP 1028.

Walter has confirmed that this is indeed the case.  As you can 
read a few posts up his response to my "What am I missing?" query 
was "Nothing at all."

Yes, it's really that bad.

Your help in undoing this mistake would be greatly appreciated by 
me and by the authors of, literally, hundreds of posts in this 
thread opposing the DIP.