Simplification of @trusted

[Timon Gehr]

On 16.06.21 23:32, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Wednesday, 16 June 2021 at 21:26:08 UTC, Bruce Carneal wrote:
>> I like the notion that others have mentioned of @safe checking by 
>> default within @trusted code (which would require @system blocks to 
>> disable checking).  Perhaps we could adopt an opt-in strategy where 
>> such @safe checking is triggered by the presence of an @system block.
> 
> Under this proposal, @system lambdas/blocks within @trusted code would 
> have the exact same semantics as @trusted blocks/lambdas within @safe 
> code currently do. It's pure bikeshedding.

I wouldn't even bother if that was the case.

The semantics is different if you consider code evolution and properly 
assigning blame for bugs.

@safe code is code you don't have to check for memory safety errors.

You can try to move the goal posts, but the title of this discussion is 
"simplifying @trusted", not "redefining @safe".