> Nope, unsafe does exactly what it says on the tin.
Depends on how you interpret the name—whether it's referring to what it does (makes things no longer automatically safe), or whether it's referring to what the code inside it does.
If you write only safe code, inside an unsafe{} block, then nothing unsafe is happening. Fewer compile-time static-analysis checks are happening, but if you manually verify that the code is "safe anyway" the way C/C++ programmers are forced to do, then you can declare that the code is safe, maybe with a comment like:
// this is safe
unsafe{ ... }
That seems bizarre and contradictory, no? But it would seem less weird if it was:
// this is safe
unchecked{ ... }
Of course, there's no reason you should be using an unsafe{} block for only safe code, so unsafe{} is usually a pretty good label for the content of the block.
Depends on how you interpret the name—whether it's referring to what it does (makes things no longer automatically safe), or whether it's referring to what the code inside it does.
If you write only safe code, inside an unsafe{} block, then nothing unsafe is happening. Fewer compile-time static-analysis checks are happening, but if you manually verify that the code is "safe anyway" the way C/C++ programmers are forced to do, then you can declare that the code is safe, maybe with a comment like:
That seems bizarre and contradictory, no? But it would seem less weird if it was: Of course, there's no reason you should be using an unsafe{} block for only safe code, so unsafe{} is usually a pretty good label for the content of the block.