I'm not talking about unsafe fields. (maybe I gave that impression? Sorry.)
That's how it is defined in the manual, sure, but the language is changing :) Anyway, as mentioned before we don't need to use `unsafe` for non-memory safety guarantees, if we define anothe attribute that genericises it. -Manish Goregaokar On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:01 AM, Daniel Micay <danielmi...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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. > >
_______________________________________________ Rust-dev mailing list Rust-dev@mozilla.org https://mail.mozilla.org/listinfo/rust-dev
