On 28/03/14 07:44 AM, Tommi wrote: > > This is incorrect. All those range based functions (or majority of > them... I'm not sure) are safe if the range(s) you pass to them is safe. > That's why those range functions can't guarantee safety as part of their > signature. For example, look at the following D code, where I'm using > range based functions on a range that's memory safe in a code labeled as > safe:
So if you make a range, store it and then resize a container, it remains safe?
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
