I'm uninterested in features that make Rust memory unsafe outside of the
"unsafe" sublanguage, and so (as I said in the thread) I am strongly opposed to
the noboundscheck flag or any other similar features.
Patrick
On March 28, 2014 8:12:36 PM PDT, Tony Arcieri <[email protected]> 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
--
Sent from my Android phone with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
