https://issues.dlang.org/show_bug.cgi?id=19916
--- Comment #21 from ag0aep6g <ag0ae...@gmail.com> --- (In reply to Manu from comment #20) > T x = void; // <- DOES lead to memory corruption; it's effectively an > explicit statement to do memory corruption. How could a more explicit > violation of @safe exist, no matter how you squint and interpret it? > I don't care strongly either way. You'll have to convince Walter. [...] > > You might want to argue your position in > > <https://github.com/dlang/dlang.org/pull/2260>. It's an open PR by Walter > > where he does exactly what you oppose here: he wants to explicitly allow > > accessing uninitialized memory in @safe code (unless it involves pointers). > > That PR doesn't appear to have anything to do with @safe? But it clearly does. It resolves issue 18016 which is about accessing void initialized memory in @safe code. With the PR, the spec will allow that. DMD already allows it (in conflict with the current spec). --