On 28/03/14 13:51, Jared Forsyth wrote:
It just seems that all arguments have been made 5+ times by both
sides. I would agree that mailing list discussions that start going in
circles become no longer appropriate for a mailing list.
I've yet to see any valid explanation for why the instructions that do
the check can't simply be not emitted, along the lines of:
if (flag_set) {
emit(check_instruction)
}
Nothing about dropping a few instructions requires the rust ABI to
break, or for the code to be marked unsafe in some extreme chain of
consequences. Just stop including that in the definition safety, if a
user asks you do, in their program, that they're building.
I'm sure it's more complicated than that, technically, but if it's MUCH
more technically complicated, then the compiler probably has design issues.
At the moment, though, it seems like this is being **politically**
complicated, when it should be up to users.
--
Lee
On Fri, Mar 28, 2014 at 7:48 AM, Tommi <rusty.ga...@icloud.com
<mailto:rusty.ga...@icloud.com>> wrote:
On 28 Mar 2014, at 15:43, Matthew Frazier <leafstormr...@gmail.com
<mailto:leafstormr...@gmail.com>> wrote:
I would just like to interject that this conversation has been
blowing my inbox up all morning and seems to be going absolutely
nowhere.
That's a good argument against using mailing lists for this kind
of a purpose.
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org <mailto:Rust-dev@mozilla.org>
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
_______________________________________________
Rust-dev mailing list
Rust-dev@mozilla.org
https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
