Saying it doesn't make it true. There is nothing principled about it - a pure hack around the borrow checker. It seems to be one of the most unprincipled ways -

Saying it doesn't make it true. There is nothing principled about it - a pure hack around the borrow checker. It seems to be one of the most unprincipled ways - more like casting away const in c++ And I know what unsafe pointers are, but the special keyword would allow the compiler to understand more about the code's intentions. edit: I take that back. It seems worse. It would as if there was a way to get rid of const by a series of assignments without ever having to explicitly cast it away.