Well, for me there is nothing unsafe
here. If we are happy with two keyword prefixes, maybe dyn struct Trait
would be a go: sementically this thing is an ad-hoc struct that wrap a trait object may or may not be a dyn Trait
inside.
Would this be necessory? I guess a definition like "dyn struct Trait
means the same as dyn Trait
if Trait
is object safe" would be enough.
This should be a warning, as I proposed.