Memory Safe Programming

[Dukc]

On Monday, 17 August 2026 at 20:30:21 UTC, Walter Bright wrote:
> On 8/17/2026 10:53 AM, Dukc wrote:
>> Walter, if you happen to read this how does this sound?
>
> I think we agreed that going "safer" by default was a good 
> candidate for an edition.

Where? Saw no mention of that. When the switch was discussed last 
December when you had added it, I'd say the reception was mixed.

It could well be better than nothing if a full safe by default 
isn't an option. But my point was, maybe it is an option after 
all? You rejected the amendment the community demanded to 
DIP1028, because you felt that the large amounts of code becoming 
`@safe` at once and stopping compiling would have people to 
greenwash their interfaces to C functions as falsely safe.

But back then we didn't have editions. Since we now do, it means 
the code is not going to break until people update their edition 
specifications in their code. So there's no hurry to get all 
those C functions `@safe` or `@trusted`, and thus no pressure to 
cut corners and greenwash them. Don't you feel we could now have 
a real safe by default in a shiny new edition instead of just a 
compromise?