On 03/03/14 08:54 PM, Patrick Walton wrote: > On 3/3/14 5:53 PM, Daniel Micay wrote: >> On 03/03/14 08:19 PM, Steve Klabnik wrote: >>> Part of the issue with that statement is that you may or may not >>> program in this way. Yes, people choose certain subsets of C++ that >>> are more or less safe, but the language can't help you with that. >> >> You can choose to write unsafe code in Rust too. > > You have to write the *unsafe* keyword to do so. > > Patrick
You need an `unsafe` keyword somewhere, but the memory safety bug can originate in safe code. Any safe code called by unsafe code is trusted too, but not marked as such. A memory safety bug can originate essentially anywhere in librustc, libsyntax, libstd and the other libraries because they're freely mixed with `unsafe` code. It's pretty much a false sense of security without tooling to show which code is trusted by an `unsafe` block/function *somewhere*, even in another crate.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
