zlacker

> I was paraphrasing.

You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.

> Rust's UB guarantees

Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees? Rust doesn't have one as far as I know.

>>topspi+(OP)
> You put it in quotes and didn't mention any paraphrasing. Linus didn't write it.

I think it's a fair characterization of what was said. Feel free, as everyone is, to read the entire thread again. I'm not a journalist. You have the primary source at your finger tips!

> Can you point out the normative document that provides these guarantees?

You're looking at the Rust reference right? https://doc.rust-lang.org/reference/behavior-considered-unde...

>>mustac+K
> You're looking at the Rust reference right?

Not normative, as stated here[1], linked from the page you cite.

[1] https://doc.rust-lang.org/nomicon/index.html

>>topspi+t1
Okay? Do you think you have you quibbled enough? To be clear, I still think it's fine for Wedson to inform him even if the document is not a normative reference/specification? Even if these are just the expectations of API/Rust users?

>>mustac+K
> I think it's a fair characterization of what was said.

I think inventing Linus quotes is unfair.

>>topspi+d2
Again, not a journalist? You/everyone are supposed to have read the primary source, as it's the linked subject of our discussion. I think whatever expectations of fairness we have for internet comments -- I have far exceeded them. And now we have your comment pointing out... whatever it is you wanted to point out. Reader beware!

>>mustac+42
> the expectations of API/Rust users?

Pointing out whatever those are is fine. Linus pointing out the expectations of the Linux kernel is fine too, and no amount of invoking fictional formalisms trumps them.

>>topspi+O3
I 100% agree. And if you read my comments you'd realize, I agree with Linus on the substance. I think the way he said it was dick-ish. That's it!