Unsafety can be subtle

Unsafety can be subtle

> I literally just told you a story like that, and you responded by making up a bunch of things I didn't say,

How is it different from how you make up piece of documentation that never existed and write “slice::get_unchecked is documented to have the same semantic meaning as C pointer arithmetic” then use that “a bunch of things [others] didn't say” as justification for your assertions?

I have even gave you benefit of doubt and asked just where it was documented that way.

And in the end, instead of showing us something like that you decided to blame the documentation for your inability to read: “it is perfectly reasonable to interpret the two as synonymous when reading documentation casually”.

And when I ridiculed it editor only had to say this: “This is an on-topic discussion, but please remember to keep things polite”.

And yes, I agree, I wasn't polite, but I, at least, stick to the facts.

You want to say that only you can lie (that one even you admitted as a lie: “but literally nobody follows the strict provenance rules anyway, since they're explicitly marked as experimental and non-normative“) and then use these lies to misrepresent things? Others couldn't do that?

Let me quite myself, for a change (you haven't misquoted me, just ignored what I say): Rust developer would like to hear “hey, I don't know how to implement this kind of design while staying in the boundaries outlined by the strict provenance approach” stories. Not stories related to someone's inability to read or understand the documentation (documentation writers do accept patches for such cases, but, as noted, it's not clear how to change the documentation and force someone to actually try to read and understand it… I'm not even sure that's possible at all)!

And you tell me that we are discussing exactly such story here. But that's big fat lie, author of the original example even admitted that original code that was discussed was brought to compliance with stacked borrows (and the whole example that we are discussing here really-really doesn't need any pointers and thus stacked borrows or other such horrors, if you want to eliminate bounds checking then call to one unsafe function with literally zero arguments is absolutely enough).

Thus it doesn't see an example of design that is limited by strict provenance. Not even remotely close to it. Sorry.