Re: @trust is an encapsulation method, not an escape

[Zach the Mystic via Digitalmars-d]

On Friday, 6 February 2015 at 17:36:27 UTC, Atila Neves wrote:
I'm trying to promote suggesting '@system' blocks instead of 
'@trusted'. '@trusted' functions, but '@system' blocks - which 
can only go in @trusted functions (@system block in @system 
functions are redundant). It's the same semantics, but it 
might win the day because the intent is to isolate the @system 
code, while still presenting a @trusted interface, as seems so 
important to the leadership.

That might be better than using @safe inside @trusted:

@trusted void myfunc() {
//implicitly safe
...
@system { //wouldn't compile otherwise.
   auto ptr = cast(ubyte*)4;
}

//implicitly safe again
}

Exactly. I think this addresses the concerns. If I read Walter's 
OP correctly, it's precisely the use of the word '@trusted' that 
he opposes, unless it's built into an interface like a function 
signature. Also, a @system block could be one statement long, if 
I'm not mistaken, in which case the above could look like:

@trusted void myfunc() {
//implicitly safe
...
@system auto ptr = cast(ubyte*)4;

//implicitly safe again
}