dnrops
/
rfcs
mirror of https://github.com/rust-lang/rfcs.git
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Improve wording of where `safe` is allowed 

Let's improve the wording related to where the `safe` keyword is
allowed.

(Thanks to Waffle for raising this point.)
This commit is contained in:
Travis Cross 2024-05-06 06:01:45 +00:00
parent 23f0acfe26
commit 1cef0263cc
1 changed files with 1 additions and 1 deletions
Show Stats Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

2
text/0000-unsafe-extern-blocks.md
View File

@ -33,7 +33,7 @@ An extern static value is also declared with a `;` instead of an expression (sim
In both cases, the actual function body or value is provided by whatever external source (which is probably not even written in Rust). In both cases, the actual function body or value is provided by whatever external source (which is probably not even written in Rust).
When an `unsafe extern` block is used, all declarations within that `extern` block *must* have the `unsafe` or `safe` keywords as part of their signature. When an `unsafe extern` block is used, all declarations within that `extern` block *must* have the `unsafe` or `safe` keywords as part of their signature.
The `safe` keyword is a contextual keyword, it is currently only used within `extern` blocks. The `safe` keyword is a contextual keyword; it is currently allowed only within `extern` blocks.
If an `extern` block is used in an older edition without the `unsafe` keyword, declarations *cannot* specify `safe` or `unsafe`. If an `extern` block is used in an older edition without the `unsafe` keyword, declarations *cannot* specify `safe` or `unsafe`.
Code must update to `unsafe extern` style blocks if it wants to make `safe` declarations. Code must update to `unsafe extern` style blocks if it wants to make `safe` declarations.