Miss Dada  🏳️‍⚧️

Reason #18723 why I hate Actix and think the Rust community really should abandon ship on it and work on alternatives like warp, tower, gotham or rocket https://twitter.com/whitequark/status/1217945196400447488 …

It's annoying because the community has gone way overboard with the "no unsafe ever" trend, and I want to be on the maintainer's side. But holy shit their reactions on the issue tracker are ridiculous

Yeah like a little unsafe here and there sure. Necessary stuff, but this maintainer is too dismissive. You'll also love to hear their commit for adding their own custom unsafe cell was merely: "add custom cell"

What's frustrating with their style is they clearly don't understand what `unsafe` *means*. "There's no issue because public API doesn't exhibit UB" no that's besides the point. This function has unchecked invariants. Mark it as unsafe and move on

was the issue here that a public function is not marked unsafe, but contained `unsafe` blocks, but doesn't guarantee the invariants those blocks rely on? I'm still really unsure what forces a function to be marked unsafe

but the compiler doesn't *force* you to mark a function that contains `unsafe { ... }` as `unsafe`, you have to elect to do that? so `unsafe { ... }` is you going "look, I know rustc can't prove this memory use is ok, but trust me I know what I'm doing"

correct. unsafe { } means within this block of code I have upheld the invariant. whereas marking the fn unsafe means, you the callee need to uphold some invariant.