If you needed any more evidence that memory safety is the future...

[Nick Sabalausky (Abscissa) via Digitalmars-d]

On 03/02/2017 06:00 PM, Guillaume Piolat wrote:
> On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 13:38:57 UTC, Moritz Maxeiner wrote:
>> On Friday, 24 February 2017 at 06:59:16 UTC, Jack Stouffer wrote:
>>> https://bugs.chromium.org/p/project-zero/issues/detail?id=1139
>>>
>>> [...]
>>
>> This isn't evidence that memory safety is "the future", though.
>
> Completely agreed.
> This only shows that memory safety is not the present. Not that it is
> "the future".

I think it's safe enough to just go ahead and interpret it as 
"...evidence that memory safety is important and SHOULD be the direction 
we take."

It's English, not an ISO RFC.