4 ms·

I agree with you and I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That being said, it's nice to be able to have guarantees about your build without having to look

by dymk 4y ago

I agree with you and I'm not sure why you're being downvoted. That being said, it's nice to be able to have guarantees about your build without having to look at the transitive closure of dependencies in your project. It'd be nice if crates could be marked as "hygienic build" or something, and a hygienic crate can only depend on other hygienic crates. And then something like `cargo check-hygienic` which fails if any dependencies are non-hygienic.

stubish 4y ago
'avoid the crates that do it' requires careful vetting of all code in the crates you use and all the crate's dependencies, now and in all future versions of your crate and crate's dependencies. Which in reality turns out to be impractical for most projects in most work environments. And even if practical, turns out that many ways of vetting the code will expand the macros and do arbitrary code execution.
- dymk 4y ago
  > requires careful vetting of all code in the crates you use I just explained it would be useful to have a cargo sub-command for automating this
  - jiggawatts 4y ago
    You = “You and all your coworkers, forever.”