| >the unsafety is because of the lifetime laundering not because the operation is unsafe. You have missed the point. I said you can't leak memory in safe Rust. That is true. Box::leak isn't safe Rust: it uses the unsafe keyword. This is half the problem with the stupid keyword: it confuses people. I am saying that it requires the trustme keyword and you are saying it isn't inherently incorrect. Rust uses "unsafe" to mean both. But in context it is quite clear what I meant when talking about Box::leak, which you falsely claimed could be written in safe Rust. >And while we’re at it, please explain to me how this hypothetical language that allocates on the heap without mutable state exists without under the hood calling out to the real mutable allocator somewhere. What does the implementation have to do with anything? We are talking about languages not implementations. This isn't a difficult concept. >It’s just that you’re choosing to define it as not a memory leak. Another definition of memory leak might be “memory that is retained longer than it needs to be to accomplish the intended goal”. That isn't the definition. I am using the only definition of the term that any serious person has ever used. >That’s because users are indifferent to whether the user code is retaining the reference and forgetting about it or the user code lost the reference and the language did too. Users are completely irrelevant. It is logically impossible to ever prevent "leaks" that are just the storage of information. That isn't a leak, it is the intentional storage of information by the programmer. So it is a completely useless concept if that is what you want to use. It might be a useful concept in application user experience design or something but we are talking about programming languages. On the other hand, "memory leaks" is a very useful concept if you use the actual definition because it is almost difficult to even conceive of a memory management strategy that isn't concerned with preventing memory leaks (proper). The "short lived program; free nothing" strategy is the only one I can think of, a degenerate case. >More importantly as has been pointed out numerous times to you, memory safety is a technical term of art in the field (unlike memory leaks) that specifically is defined as the issues safe Rust prevents No, it isn't! That is the definition that Rust people choose to use, which nobody used before 2015ish and is only widely used because Rust captured mindshare. It isn't some definition that predated Rust and which Rust magically fell right into. Go back and look at mailing list threads, forum posts, papers, anything before Rust tried to steal the term "safety". It referred (and properly still refers) to programs. When people complained about manual memory management, the big complaint was that big C++ GUI programs (in particular) leaked memory like sieves. Nobody was particularly concerned about data races except the people implementing concurrency primitives in standard libraries etc. C++ didn't even have a defined memory model or standard atomics. Everyone was relying on x86's strong memory model in code all over the place. The big concern was avoiding manual memory management, memory leaks, and data corruption. "Safe" didn't mean "has no data races but might have race conditions, has no use after free but might have memory leaks, and might have overflow bugs and SQL injections and improper HTML sanitisation". That would be a truly stupid definition. It meant "correct". The fanatical Rust community came along and tried to redefine "safe" to mean "the things we prevent". Rust's definition makes sense for Rust but it is Rust-specific because it is downstream of what Rust is capable of enforcing. Nobody would a priori come up with the particular subset of correctness properties that Rust happens to enforce and call them "safety". It is transparently a posteriori. |