Memory safety depends entirely on GC ?

[Andrei Alexandrescu via Digitalmars-d]

On 2/24/15 9:35 AM, "Ulrich =?UTF-8?B?S8O8dHRsZXIi?= 
<kuettler at gmail.com>" wrote:
> On Tuesday, 24 February 2015 at 16:18:45 UTC, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>> On 2/24/15 4:44 AM, "Marc =?UTF-8?B?U2Now7x0eiI=?= <schuetzm at gmx.net>"
>> wrote:
>>> As one example, here is what I originally suggested:
>>> http://wiki.dlang.org/User:Schuetzm/scope
>>
>> Walter and I discussed this proposal at length several times.
>
> Is there a place where the outcome of such discussions is documented?
>
> This feels inappropriate like asking for additional paperwork. Still,
> there are so many heated discussions going on here. It might be helpful
> to know what was considered, what was decided and for what reason. Then
> again, maybe I just did not get the memo.

Closest thing to documentation are http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP69 and 
http://wiki.dlang.org/DIP25, both of which came at the same time 
inspired by that work, and in reaction to its complexity. We are looking 
at what parts of DIP69 are simplified/obviated by DIP25. If we can get 
away with no DIP69 at all, so much the better. -- Andrei