Hm, I'm not sure I understand how that's answering my question. Neither of those seem to even define what the "memory safety" notion means for D so I can't compare. And, looking into it further, none of the links from https://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html define (or compare) what D means by "memory safety"/if it differs to the conventional definition.

I guess your original comment was maybe meaning how D enforces (the "normal" definition of) memory safety differs to Rust? In any case, I read over both of those, and, to me, they both seem to essentially be a slightly less general version of Rust's scheme (possibly independently invented), rather than something very different. I'm interested to hear how you think they specifically differ to Rust.

Memory safety in D is the usual definition - making memory corruption impossible.

There's no notion of "borrowing" in D nor any notion of "only one mutable access at a time".

By not having borrowing, do you mean the compiler doesn't stop one from mutating something that has a dependent scoped pointer pointing into it? How does D avoid dangling pointers for that?

It has a GC, I think.