make @safe "non-escapable"?

[Robert]

Ok. Now I see what you mean. Good point, maybe it makes sense to extend
my proposal to simply state that @trusted, @system and @safe are simple
not overridable.

On Thu, 2013-02-07 at 01:07 +0100, Era Scarecrow wrote:
> >>    @trusted { //disallowed for (bulk) function/type 
> >> declarations
> >>               //intended only for bits of code or for 
> >> functions:
> >>               //Otherwise an easy unchecked breeding ground 
> >> for bugs!
> >>      int test1() {}          //error
> >>      int test1() @safe {}    //error
> >>      int test1() @system {}  //error
> >>      int test1() @trusted {} //error, yes it is
> >>                              //even if explicit
> >>      a = b;
> >>    }
> >
> > Why would the @safe definition be an error?
> 
>   Because getting adding functions to a @trusted area would allow 
> some lazy programmers to say 'it just works', it would be so easy 
> to just remove @safe (and it would work). In general @trusted 
> (code blocks) in my mind shouldn't allow function/structs/any 
> type of extra declarations as it would be so easy to make it 
> 'seem safe' while not properly checked, or adding a new function 
> in while not wanting to move it back and forth between writing & 
> testing.
> 
>   Sides allowing @safe in a @trusted zone while nothing else works 
> doesn't make sense. It would be better to disallow period all 
> rather than give an easy route for problems later. At least with 
> @system and @safe code you know where you stand.