A serious security bug... caused by no bounds checking.

[Steven Schveighoffer]

On Thu, 10 Apr 2014 13:25:25 -0400, bearophile <bearophileHUGS at lycos.com>  
wrote:

> Steven Schveighoffer:
>
>> No, the author of the @safe code expects bounds checking, it's part of  
>> the requirements.
>
> Take a look ad Ada language. It has bounds checking and its compilers  
> have a switch to disable those checks. If you want the bounds checking  
> don't use the switch that disables the bounds checking. Safety doesn't  
> mean to have no way to work around safety locks. It means have nice  
> handy locks that are active on default. In a system language total  
> safety is an illusion. Better to focus on real world safety and not a  
> illusion of theoretical safety.

That's why we have @trusted. @safe is a special situation, it's not made  
for optimization, and should be immune to those attempts in deference to  
safety.

-Steve