Actual lifetime of static array slices?

[Siarhei Siamashka]

On Tuesday, 15 November 2022 at 13:16:18 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> D's safety model is the same. In `@safe` code, D will reject 
> anything that the compiler cannot say for sure is memory safe. 
> However, unlike in Rust, `@safe` is not the default in D, so 
> you must mark your code as `@safe` manually if you want to 
> benefit from these checks.

I specifically asked for Ali's opinion. Because the context is 
that the compiler couldn't catch a memory safety bug in the code 
that was annotated as @safe (but without -dip1000) and Ali 
commented that "the compiler cannot do anything about it in all 
cases and we wouldn't want it to spend infinite amount of time to 
try to determine everything". This sounds like he justifies the 
compiler's failure and accepts this as something normal.

The https://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html page also provides 
a rather vague statement: "@safe functions have a number of 
restrictions on what they may do and are intended to disallow 
operations that may cause memory corruption". Which kinda means 
that it makes some effort to catch some memory safety bugs. This 
weasel language isn't very reassuring, compared to a very clear 
Rust documentation.