On 28 Mar 2014, at 14:27, Daniel Micay <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 28/03/14 08:25 AM, Tommi wrote: >> On 28 Mar 2014, at 05:56, Patrick Walton <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> I think that Rust should give you the ability to opt out of safety, but on >>> a per-operation basis. Having it as a compiler option is too much of a >>> sledgehammer: often you want some non-performance-critical bounds to be >>> checked in the name of safety, while you want some bounds checks to be >>> turned off. >> >> One other argument I can give for a "sledgehammer" feature like this is that >> it can be used as a marketing tool against people who are worried about >> performance. You can say to those people: "Look, if, at the end of the day, >> you decide that you'd rather take raw speed over safety, then there's this >> compiler flag you can use to disable all runtime memory safety checking in >> your code and get performance on par with C++". > > It's called `unsafe`. There's a whole keyword reserved for it. >From a marketing standpoint, I don't think that the following sounds very >appealing: "Look, if, at the end of the day, you'd rather choose raw speed over safety, then you can go over all the hundreds of thousands of lines of code you have and change everything to their unsafe, unchecked variants". _______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
