Comment by bluGill
7 hours ago
I don't think adding unsafe will be possible - it will break too much existing code. We might be able to add something new that is only possible in an unsafe context, but there is too much existing code.
However I do expect a [[safe]] profile (or perhaps several, depending on which paper you read) that everyone is encourage to opt-in to. Likely combines with compiler warnings and static analysis to encourage that use. (Also syntax is still open for debate)
Check the WG21 mailing proposals.
I was for Safe C++ paper, based on Circle experience, but it was shot down due to politics.
So we're left with the profiles camp actually delivering, followed by the remaining compilers caring to actually implement them, otherwise it will be static and dynamic analysis as usual.
It wasn't shot down due to politics. It was shot down because it solved the wrong problem.
Yeah, that is why there was a paper created specifically to kill any other proposal, by the profiles folks with WG21 majority, and ironically profiles are just as annotation heavy, but since it is profiles, it is alright.
I call that politics, and in the end the most likely outcome is that by C++29 nothing will be delivered by the profiles group, that is any better than using clang-tidy already today.