Direction for @safe/-dip1000

[deadalnix]

On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 13:15:26 UTC, Paul Backus wrote:
> On Monday, 14 February 2022 at 08:39:58 UTC, Walter Bright 
> wrote:
>> On 2/13/2022 3:15 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
>>> I've tried to figure out where this is heading. Is the 
>>> eventual goal (irrespective of mechanism) that sticking 
>>> `@safe` onto the `main` function will ensure memory safety 
>>> for the whole program?
>>
>> Yes, although @safe does not supply complete memory safety. 
>> The addition of @live fills in much of the rest.
>
> Huh? My understanding is that modulo compiler bugs and 
> incorrect use of @trusted, @safe code should be 100% memory 
> safe, even without @live.
>

Yes, @live really isn't necessary for memory safety.