> That's already supported by a .cast block.
Oh I didn't know this was already possible, that's neat.
> How about we simply follow the Rust way?
Rust's rule for unsafe behavior was what I used as a basis to write the RFC.
Specifically this portion from Rust's documentation :
> Here are the abilities Unsafe Rust has in addition to Safe Rust:
> * De-reference raw pointers
> * Implement unsafe traits
> * Call unsafe functions
> * Mutate statics (including external ones)
> * Access fields
>
> That way we get the benefit that Rust gets: it's clear what code performs
> unsafe memory operations.
> Of course this would require a lot of changes (many additions of "unsafe"
> blocks in the stdlib for example) and we may wish to make it possible to
> enable this on a per-module basis. But it would make analysing modules to
> determine how unsafe they are very trivial.
If you have more to add to the discussion, new ideas or arguments to bring to
the table of a memory unsafe effect, I encourage you to write those under the
RFC.
One of the reason I went to the trouble or writing an RFC was because of the
comparison to Rust `unsafe {}` pop-up every 6 month on the Forum :)
