bearophile wrote:
Just for example, Safe D may enforce a safer indenting of code, to avoid the "dangling else" bug (it seems I was quite right, and GCC designers have had the same idea of mine, take a look at recently added warnings of GCC, -Wparentheses and -Wsequence-point here, http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Warning-Options.html I think such things have to be built-in in SafeD), take better care of integral overflows, etc.
SafeD is about guaranteeing memory safety, not other issues like integer overflows. Memory safety is a fairly specifically defined thing.
