Pre-Pooping Your Pants with Rust

Re:Pre-Pooping Your Pants with Rust by theseoafs on Monday April 27, 2015 @12:29PM (#9447320)

It's very disappointing that the Rust community has opted to go back and change the definition of "safety" instead of actually tackling this problem head-on, all due to a self-imposed deadline there is no need to actually meet.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pre-Pooping Your Pants with Rust by aturon on Monday April 27, 2015 @02:03PM (#9448034)

Rust's basic guarantee has been, and continues to be: unless code uses `unsafe`, it is guaranteeed to be memory safe. The issue under discussion doesn't change that -- it's largely about what such `unsafe` code is allowed to do and assume. I've laid this out in a bit more detail in a comment below (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9447938)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Pre-Pooping Your Pants with Rust by steveklabnik on Monday April 27, 2015 @12:30PM (#9447324)

The definition of 'unsafe' has not changed.

[ Parent | on HN ]