Temporally safe by default

[Dom DiSc]

On Friday, 5 April 2024 at 07:16:47 UTC, Richard (Rikki) Andrew 
Cattermole wrote:
> You have @tsafe the wrong way round to @safe.
>
> It would be a stronger guarantee of temporal safety + more 
> basic pointer safety.
>
> @system ⊇ @trusted ⊇ @safe ⊇ @tsafe
>
> The capability to have @safe without DIP1000 what we have now 
> would exist in the compiler, and keeping a way to specify it 
> means we can interact with older code that is @safe.
>

So, you want something even stronger than @safe (requiring 
DIP1000 compliance) to be the default?
I mean, I would like it. But how do you see the chances this will 
happen if now we can't even agree to @safe by default?!?