On 22/09/14 06:45 PM, Manish Goregaokar wrote: > As Chris mentioned, it's not about using the type system to create > safety. We're assuming that exists, the idea is to gate unchecked access > to the data (which /is/ required for libraries created for generic use) > with the `unsafe` keyword. However, many seem to be of the opinion that > `unsafe` is just for memory safety, in which case it would be nice to > have a wider range of `unsafe` attributes (or something) which allow us > to gate methods that are prone to SQL injection (etc etc). > > -Manish Goregaokar
It's not an opinion, it's how it's defined in the documentation (see the Rust manual) and the compiler warns about unnecessary usage of `unsafe` - which could be finished if there were `unsafe` fields.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list [email protected] https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
