On Wednesday, May 27, 2020 3:30:32 AM MDT Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars- d-announce wrote: > On 5/27/20 1:49 AM, Walter Bright wrote: > > On 5/26/2020 9:31 AM, Bruce Carneal wrote: > >> Currently a machine checked @safe function calling an unannotated > >> extern C routine will error out during compilation. This is great as > >> the C routine was not machine checked, and generally can not be > >> checked. Post 1028, IIUC, the compilation will go through without > >> complaint. This seems quite clear. What am I missing? > > > > Nothing at all. > > That means safe by default is effectively loosening D's notion of safety. > > This DIP must go.
Which is exactly what most of us have been arguing for weeks (months?). It either needs to go or be ammended so that non-extern(D) declarations continue to be treated as @system instead of automatically becoming @safe with the DIP. The result of all of that arguing is that Walter accepted the DIP and then started this thread as his more detailed reply when there were a ton of complaints about the DIP's acceptance - and of course, you've already read and replied to his reasoning. As far as I can tell, Walter understands the issues but fundamentally disagrees with pretty much everyone else on the issue. He seems to think that weakening @safe is worth doing, because it will ultimately mean that more code will be treated as @safe and mechnically checked by the compiler, whereas most everyone else thinks that weakening @safe is unacceptable. But since Walter managed to convince Atila, the DIP has been accepted. - Jonathan M Davis
