On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Walter Bright wrote: > Denis Koroskin wrote: > > Safe as in SafeD (i.e. no memory corruption) :) > > Right. The problems with other definitions of safe is they are too > ill-defined.
There's SafeD, which has a fairly formal definition. The other side of it is the general principle of D which is that the right way should be the easy and obvious way. Slices and arrays have issue with the principle.
