bearophile wrote: > Walter Bright: >> SafeD is about guaranteeing memory safety, not other issues like integer >> overflows. Memory safety is a fairly specifically defined thing. > > Then maybe the name of SafeD isn't too much good, because when I hear that > name I think about a safe(r) language, and not about memory safety only. So > maybe an alternative name can be invented... (but I have no good name to > suggest you so far). > > Bye, > bearophile
I've always understood the 'safety' here as safe from buffer overflow exloits and such, instead of safety against bugs in general. (security).
