dip1000 and preview in combine to cause extra safety errors

[Walter Bright]

On 6/9/2022 7:51 AM, Timon Gehr wrote:
> Your are predicting that some people will explicitly do the wrong and lazy 
> thing,

My experience is that the vast bulk of people will do the least amount of 
effort. It's why software is always larded up with technical debt. I do it, too. 
Yes, sometimes I've used duct tape and baling wire. Anyone who claims they 
haven't, I don't believe :-)

> hence the compiler should do the wrong and lazy thing implicitly by 
> default. This just makes no sense. What's the big harm in annoying lazy people 
> slightly more? It's not like they won't complain loudly about `@safe` by default 
> in any case.

I'm the recipient of all the complaints that I'm breaking their existing code.

 > May as well do it right or not at all.

This entire thread is what happens with "not at all".

At some point all C functions have to be trusted in some form or other because 
the D compiler has NO way to check them, and neither does the D programmer. 
Putting `@trusted` on the C declarations accomplishes nothing, it's safety theater.

In druntime, we've gone through many (certainly not all) of the C declarations 
and appropriately added correct annotations to them. But realistically, this is 
not scalable.