* Jonathan S. Shapiro: > And it most certainly is *not* stronger than Ada's approach.
Ada 83 was standardized with a known type safety hole involving aliasing and descriminant records. Subsequent Ada revisions all added machinery to deal with aliasing issues, without addressing the old safety hole. Rust is different. At least before 1.0, the developers will try hard to fix safety issues. > There is at least a well-defined subset of Ada for which both the > type system and the language semantics have been fully formalized: > SPARK Ada. The feel is rather different from Ada, though. > It's not difficult to get this right. I'm not sure if I agree. Rust also has an unsafe language, and it is used to implement parts of the standard library (which in turn provides some of the language features). As a result, badly written library code can break safety as well, and that's beyond the type system of the safe language. _______________________________________________ bitc-dev mailing list [email protected] http://www.coyotos.org/mailman/listinfo/bitc-dev
