An interesting consequence of safety requirements

[Walter Bright]

grauzone wrote:
> Also, does anybody really care about SafeD, or would it be better if we 
> had some sort of valgrind for D? Maybe this is one of those features 
> which first sounded nice, but then it turned out it's better to drop them.

valgrind is a runtime thing, so it depends on having a reasonably 
complete test suite, and cannot say anything about code that is not 
executed by the test suite. Even if the test suite has 100% coverage of 
all code paths, that is still no guarantee of not having undefined behavior.

SafeD offers a compile time guarantee.