Compiling with that flag would figuratively speaking wrap everything inside an unsafe block and then omit vector bounds checking. The flag wouldn't be allowed for library builds.
What I find a bit totalitarian about this situation is that the language forces a decision which the programmer should be allowed to make for himself. A bit like someone dictating my hair style. > On 28 Mar 2014, at 02:05, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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. > _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
