> "it uses the `unsafe` keyword, therefore it can't be safe" > ... would be disingenuous, or at least very ignorant. That's quite literally what it means - th

> "it uses the `unsafe` keyword, therefore it can't be safe" > ... would be disingenuous, or at least very ignorant. That's quite literally what it means - there is a "safe" Rust code that never uses the "unsafe" but the example given by the parent comment is just not the example of that. I am not sure why would my comment come out as ignorant - it's factual state of things. > it's not because you can't write a provably-safe library with C++ Hm, you really can't? Neither you can with safe or unsafe Rust. None of the compilers for those languages are formally verified.