* Jonathan S. Shapiro: >>> If not, what is our basis for confidence in the safety of Rust? >> >> They still have known, non-intentional holes (and quite a few unknown >> ones, I suspect).
> Then perhaps I misunderstood something. What safety claims are they > making? They intend to provide a safe subset (which is also the default language) where it's quite unlikely that you bypass memory safety accidentally. As far as I understand, they won't use formal methods to ensure that it's impossible, or compile down to an IR which is fairly certainly memory-safe. It's much stronger than Ada's approach and safety violations are treated as bugs, but it's likely that they will keep popping up for a while. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
