What does `unsafe` mean?

@alercah, @Ixrec: What both of you are saying makes sense. And the “unsafe fields” concept doesn’t take care of everything, like the Cell example from Pre-RFC: Unsafe Types or the fact that Vec doesn’t depend only on its fields, but also what memory has been allocated (although I suppose freeing the memory is also unsafe?).

I think I have 2 main reasons to look askance at using module boundaries for safety:

  • It means anything in the same module is also unsafe (in the sense of promising to uphold guarantees), even if it’s not marked that way – I would be more comfortable reading the code if it was all marked explicitly, even if that was more verbose.
  • Ergonomics – in order to limit what code falls in the same module as the unsafe stuff, I might want to make more submodules than usual, which could involve writing a lot of boilerplate (e.g. re-exports and accessor methods). I’ve always found splitting Rust code into submodules to be a bit inconvenient for my taste.

Thinking about it, neither of these problems seem insurmountable, but I’m not sure how I would make the overall system feel clean enough to me.