Exactly what I wanted to hear ;)
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 8:26 PM, Brian Anderson <[email protected]>wrote: > I appreciate your concern, but I don't think a moratoreum is necessary; > memory safety is parament to Rust, so the idea of adding 'unsafe features > to the safe subset of Rust' is an oxymoron. > > > On 03/28/2014 08:12 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote: > >> I really love the semantics of the safe subset of Rust. >> >> Recently there has been a call to introduce an optional feature flag >> which removes bounds checks to the *safe* subset of Rust (i.e. outside >> of unsafe blocks) >> >> I think this sort of suggestion imperils Rust's goals as a language. >> >> Adding off switches for Rust's safety features complicates the >> language's implementation and increases the likelihood a language >> implementer will make a mistake and turn a safety switch off when it >> should be on. >> >> I would like to make a general proposal that the unsafe subset of Rust >> be improved to the point where it can answer these sort of concerns, and >> that those who make requests to flip off Rust's various safety features >> in the safe subset of the language be gently guided towards the unsafe >> set of the language while keeping the safe semantics exactly how they are. >> >> -- >> Tony Arcieri >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Rust-dev mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev >> >> > -- Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
