Re:Rust and C++ Interoperability in Chrome
by kbenson on Wednesday August 19, 2020 @06:04PM
(#24217269)
> "unchecked" might be a better annotation come to think of it.
Yeah, it's come up before in discussions here. Depending on the context you're coming from/working in, unchecked either makes more sense, or less sense than unsafe. When working within Rust, unsafe makes sense, it maps to how people think about what they are doing, because rustc is checking everything. When working between Rust and other languages/libraries, it's a bit less accurate, and "unchecked" makes more sense.
Re:Rust and C++ Interoperability in Chrome
by jevgeni on Thursday August 20, 2020 @02:49AM
(#24220570)
Sounds like an organizational way of seeming open to something, but making sure it never flies.
“We are happy to empower our younger colleagues. We only ask they have 25 years of experience.”
Oh... no, no, that's... very unsafe lol.
Jokes aside, making that their #1 goal was very strange. Agreed it appears to be a fundamental misunderstanding of what "unsafe" means. It doesn't mean that it's literally not safe to call that function, just that it's unchecked. "unchecked" might be a better annotation come to think of it.