A safer interface for core.stdc

[Dicebot via Digitalmars-d]

On Monday, 9 February 2015 at 17:45:09 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu 
wrote:
> On 2/9/15 1:39 AM, Dicebot wrote:
>>
>> I think this is crucial if we want to keep actual Phobos 
>> sources easily
>> review-able within your requirements. There is a good value in 
>> having
>> `core.stdc` to map C headers 1-to-1 though.
>>
>> Would you consider separate `core.safestdc` package tree where 
>> such
>> wrappers could be put on per need basis (duplicating tree 
>> structure of
>> core.stdc modules internally)
>
> Walter opposes this on grounds of increased maintenance 
> burdens. He points out (rightly imho) that we better focus on 
> the higher-level primitives present in Phobos. -- Andrei

I foresee certain stdc-based primitives being duplicated over and 
over again as nested functions - in scope of complying with 
"minimal @trusted function that exposes @safe API" rule.