1. 25
  1.  

  2. 2

    Well that’s unfortunate… It looks like it requires somewhat contrived code, though. So I guess it’s still safer than C/C++, where this kind of unsoundness is ubiquitous.

    Hopefully the community can find a good solution that minimizes breaking changes.

    1. 13

      Hopefully the community can find a good solution that minimizes breaking changes.

      I’d rather prefer having the issue fixed the best, most principled way people can come up with. The feature was stabilized less than a year ago, even if it were necessary to unstabilize it and go back to the drawing board, I’d be in favor of that.

      Rust is way too young to be accreting technical debt at such a fundamental level. Putting band-aids around the issue will only compound further issues in the future.