With what will most likely become [[unsafe]] profile in C++29, assuming WG21 actually gets their profiles story right.

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)

▲

pjmlp an hour ago | parent [-]

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.

	▲	will4274 8 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		It wasn't shot down due to politics. It was shot down because it solved the wrong problem.