Thoughts on Backward Compatibility

[Paul Backus]

On Tuesday, 20 February 2024 at 09:03:15 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
> In the case of DIP1000 specifically I think maybe Robert's idea 
> of moving its checks to `@trusted` may be that way forward, and 
> making `@safe` regular GC D. Once I'm done with editions I'm 
> going to write a DIP for this.

My understanding is that both Robert's proposal and DIP 1000 are 
high-impact changes with difficult migration paths for existing 
`@safe` code. It's not clear to me that switching from one to the 
other will make things any easier.

Personally, I think if we're going to break people's code either 
way, we might as well do it by making `@safe` D more powerful, 
rather than crippling it.