Brad Roberts wrote:
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009, Walter Bright wrote:Denis Koroskin wrote:Safe as in SafeD (i.e. no memory corruption) :)Right. The problems with other definitions of safe is they are too ill-defined.There's SafeD, which has a fairly formal definition.
But a fairly generic name, which confuses people repeatedly. I'm not the first to recommend that the name be changed. It does more harm than good.
