On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 1:35 PM CEST, Alice Ryhl wrote: > On Tue, Jul 22, 2025 at 12:57 PM Benno Lossin <lossin@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Tue Jul 22, 2025 at 11:51 AM CEST, Danilo Krummrich wrote: >> > I think they're good, but we're pretty late in the cycle now. That should be >> > fine though, we can probably take them through the nova tree, or in the worst >> > case share a tag, if needed. >> > >> > Given that, it would probably be good to add the Guarantee section on as_raw(), >> > as proposed by Benno, right away. >> > >> > @Benno: Any proposal on what this section should say? >> >> At a minimum I'd say "The returned pointer is valid.", but that doesn't >> really say for what it's valid... AFAIK you're mostly using this pointer >> to pass it to the C side, in that case, how about: >> >> /// # Guarantees >> /// >> /// The returned pointer is valid for reads and writes from the C side for as long as `self` exists. >> >> Maybe we need to change it a bit more, but let's just start with this. >> >> (If you're also using the pointer from Rust, then we need to make >> changes) > > Honestly I think this is a bit over the top. I wouldn't bother adding > a section like that to every single as_raw() method out there. Hmm. And then just assume that these kinds of functions return valid pointers? I get that this is annoying to put on every function... Another option would be to have a `Ptr<'a, T>` type that is a valid pointer, but doesn't allow writing/reading safely (you need to justify why it's not a data race). And for FFI there could be an `as_ptr` function. --- Cheers, Benno
