I appreciate your concern, but I don't think a moratoreum is necessary;
memory safety is parament to Rust, so the idea of adding 'unsafe
features to the safe subset of Rust' is an oxymoron.
On 03/28/2014 08:12 PM, Tony Arcieri wrote:
I really love the semantics of the safe subset of Rust.
Recently there has been a call to introduce an optional feature flag
which removes bounds checks to the *safe* subset of Rust (i.e. outside
of unsafe blocks)
I think this sort of suggestion imperils Rust's goals as a language.
Adding off switches for Rust's safety features complicates the
language's implementation and increases the likelihood a language
implementer will make a mistake and turn a safety switch off when it
should be on.
I would like to make a general proposal that the unsafe subset of Rust
be improved to the point where it can answer these sort of concerns, and
that those who make requests to flip off Rust's various safety features
in the safe subset of the language be gently guided towards the unsafe
set of the language while keeping the safe semantics exactly how they are.
--
Tony Arcieri
_______________________________________________
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
