Discussion Thread: DIP 1028--Make @safe the Default--Final Review

[Timon Gehr]

On 04.04.20 08:58, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 4/3/2020 2:42 PM, Joseph Rushton Wakeling wrote:
>> Now I'm not suggesting that D should do it because Rust does ;-) But 
>> their reasoning seems sound, and I don't see an obvious reason for 
>> assuming @safe-ty of functions that the D compiler cannot verify.
> 
> In both Rust and D the reliance is on the programmer when calling 
> functions in another language. D gives you the option to allow the 
> programmer to treat them as safe if he wants to.

Which is fully unnecessary because @trusted fills that role perfectly fine.

The real D innovation that you appear to be arguing in favor of is that 
D allows you to treat the function as @safe by accident, i.e., even if 
you don't want to. :)

I don't understand your "elite C hacker" attitude towards this. If 
(teams of) programmers never make mistakes, they don't need @safe.


(BTW: I am still getting new messages from up to two days ago. Not sure 
what's up with that.)