On 24/06/14 02:34 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: > > You haven't explained how this is going to cause security issues in > Rust, when the language is guaranteed to be memory safe outside of > `unsafe` blocks. The `unsafe` blocks are low-level, performance critical > code where unnecessary overflow checks are always going to be > acceptable, so the feature has next to no value in terms of memory safety.
s/acceptable/unacceptable/
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
