On 27/03/14 04:42 PM, Tommi wrote: > >> A flag that removes safety is pretty antithical to the goals of the >> language, IMHO. > > Yes, I agree it's not the official Rust way of things. But not providing the > option seems quite totalitarian. An example use case might be a company that > runs its code on 100,000 servers, and has do so for many years without a > hiccup. They realize they could save millions of dollars a year in > electricity bill by disabling bounds checking, and that's what they decide to > do. At this point they would really like to have that compiler flag.
Rust already provides unchecked indexing. You're free to make use of it whenever you want. It makes zero sense to disable the bounds checks for the index operators that are considered safe. What does the unsafe keyword even mean for a project using that flag? Just because something is *possible* does not somehow make it "totalitarian" to not support it. Rust should not add flags creating incompatible dialects of the language, and that's exactly what this would do.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
