Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Posted Mar 19, 2024 22:10 UTC (Tue) by ms-tg (subscriber, #89231)
In reply to: Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++ by paulj
Parent article: Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Hi @paulj, I'm not the person you were responding to, but here are some examples I found by following other links, in case that makes is easier:

2019 - Originally rejected fix PRs that explain and remove UB or other soundness issues
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/968
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/822
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/335 (note reverted after merged)

2018 - Original response to "why 100 uses of unsafe without clear documentation of safety"
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/issues/289

I make no guarantee that these are the best examples, just a few I turned up.

Also please note, for contrast, the many fixes that went in just after the maintainer transition on Jan 20 2020, e.g.
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/1303
https://github.com/actix/actix-web/pull/1328

Herb Sutter on increasing safety in C++

Posted Mar 20, 2024 10:37 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link]

The author's replies do not seem unreasonable in any cases there. Unless you define "did not merge all of the changes" as unreasonable - which would be an unreasonable definition.

Anyway, let's leave it.