Can we just have struct inheritence already?

[Walter Bright]

On 6/10/2019 5:49 PM, Manu wrote:
> Well it's an unsatisfying or incomplete definition then if it allows
> for something so obviously unsafe (in english terms) to be considered
> perfectly fine.

Memory safety is not an incomplete concept. It's objectively defined.

 > in english terms

We don't use conversational english when discussing mathematics (and this is a 
branch of mathematics) precisely because conversational english is imprecise, 
vague, and people impute their own meanings into it. We cannot have a 
conversation about programming languages unless we have a common understanding 
of what the jargon means.

Here is what memory safety means:

"Memory safety is the state of being protected from various software bugs and 
security vulnerabilities when dealing with memory access, such as buffer 
overflows and dangling pointers."

   -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_safety

D defines @safe as "memory safe". It does not define it as "no undefined behavior".

D does fall short of that goal, because it doesn't thoroughly track allocated 
memory pointers. But that has nothing to do with undefined values for integers.