When we think of safety it is usually by reference to its opposite, the absence of safety. The traditional view of safety, called Safety-I, has consequently been defined by the absence of accidents and incidents, or as the ‘freedom from unacceptable risk.’ As a result, the focus of safety research and safety management has usually been on unsafe system operation rather than on safe operation. In contrast to the traditional view, resilience engineering maintains that ‘things go wrong’ ...| erikhollnagel.com
Why `Pin` is a part of trait signatures (and why that's a problem)| blog.yoshuawuyts.com
Placing Arguments| blog.yoshuawuyts.com
placing functions| blog.yoshuawuyts.com
A few years back I proposed view types as an extension to Rust’s type system to let us address the problem of (false) inter-procedural borrow conflicts. The basic idea is to introduce a “view type” {f1, f2} Type1, meaning “an instance of Type where you can only access the fields f1 or f2”. The main purpose is to let you write function signatures like & {f1, f2} self or &mut {f1, f2} self that define what fields a given type might access.| All Posts on baby steps