[Not really OT] Crowdstrike Analysis: It was a NULL pointer from the memory unsafe C++ language.

[Dukc]

bachmeier kirjoitti 29.7.2024 klo 17.06:
> On Monday, 29 July 2024 at 12:28:33 UTC, Dukc wrote:
>> I don't see why creative use of `@trusted` is any different. Make no 
>> mistake, it's a game that can easily get out of hand and has to be 
>> highly discouraged, but it's not "do it once and you can never benefit 
>> from @safe".
> 
> This is a breaking change. `@trusted` cannot mean both "it's been 
> verified" and "it's not been verified" at the same time. Doing this with 
> `@trusted` means you have to assume anything with `@trusted` hasn't been 
> verified.

I think you missed my previous post. I explicitly wrote that if you have 
a function with `@trusted` and no other information about it's safety, 
you can trust it just like the spec says without verifying it.

It's only if the documentation explicitly warns the `@trusted` label is 
false when you can't do that.