Safe method wont check dangling pointer?

[lzzll]

On Monday, 14 April 2014 at 23:44:47 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer 
wrote:
> On Mon, 14 Apr 2014 19:28:06 -0400, lzzll <ownrepos at gmail.com> 
> wrote:
>
>> Looks like dangling point is not checked even in method mark 
>> as safe.
>> Example:
>> ---
>> import std.stdio;
>>
>> class A {
>> 	int value;
>> 	void set_value(int value) @safe {
>> 		this.value = value;
>> 	}
>> }
>>
>> void test_safe(A a) @safe {
>> 	a.set_value(1);
>> }
>>
>> int main(string[] args) {
>> 	A a = new A();
>> 	test_safe(a);
>> 	test_safe(null);
>> 	test_safe(*(&a+100));
>> 	
>> 	writeln("done.");
>> 	return 0;
>> }
>> ---
>> test_safe(null);
>> and
>> test_safe(*(&a+100));
>> will cause segmentation fault.
>
> Safe cannot verify its inputs. main() is not marked as safe, 
> therefore it will not help.
>
> But even so, dereferencing null is @safe, since it does not 
> corrupt memory. Your *(&a + 100) will definitely not compile if 
> main is marked @safe.
>
> -Steve

That's correct.
Let me ask:
1. That's mean if I write a safe library and another guy use it 
in the wrong way, it still not really safe, right?
2. In the real world use, if I received a segmentation fault that 
mean I had to get the core dump and trace where is the problem, 
that's all right. But if I not received anything but actually the 
bad memory has been write or leak, that's the security issue.
3. I hope it will be truly safe in the future, prevent the access 
to dangling pointer, is there any plan or idea for this?