> We see no realistic path for an evolution of C++ into a language with rigorous memory safety guarantees that include temporal safety. The point Herb was maki

> We see no realistic path for an evolution of C++ into a language with rigorous memory safety guarantees that include temporal safety. The point Herb was making is that "rigorous memory safety" isn't the only bar, nor should it be. Saying there is no way to make C++ have rigorous memory safety is not the same as saying C++ can never be made safe.