On Wednesday, 31 May 2017 at 22:47:38 UTC, Steven Schveighoffer
wrote:
Again, there has not been memory corruption.
Again, the runtime *cannot* know that and hence you *cannot*
claim that. It sees an index out of bounds and it *cannot* reason
about whether a memory corruption has already occurred or not,
which means it *must assume* the worst case (it must *assume*
there was).
There is a confusion rampant in this thread that preventing
*attempted* memory corruption must mean there *is* memory
corruption.
No, please no. Nobody has written that in the entire thread even
once!
- An index being out of bounds is an error (lowercase!).
- The runtime sees that error when the array is accessed (what
you describe as *attemped* memory corruption.
- The runtime does not know *why* the index is out of bounds
It does *not* mean that there *was* memory corruption (and again,
nobody claimed that), but the runtime cannot assume that there
was not, because that is *unsafe*.
One does not require the other.
Correct, but the runtime has to be safe in the *general* case, so
it *must* assume the worst in case of a bug.
