That seems rather easy? There's still plenty of safety. It's not an `unsafe` trick or worse, you still have bounds checking and safe concurrency and well-defi

That seems rather easy? There's still plenty of safety. It's not an `unsafe` trick or worse, you still have bounds checking and safe concurrency and well-defined behavior, and you can trivially guarantee that (while mutating the vec) it cannot be changed unexpectedly while you hold ownership of the vec. The extreme ease of making that guarantee is kinda the core of their complaint. The dangling-pointer equivalent is an issue, but it's still safe (unlike in C-like langs) and there are ways to mitigate the risk of accidental misbehavior (e.g. generational pointers, or simply an ID check if you have a convenient ID). That's quite a bit different than what you get in almost any other widely-used language - e.g. some will at best be able to claim "concurrent access won't lead to undefined behavior" via e.g. the GIL, but not prevent unexpected modification (e.g. "freeze" doesn't deep-freeze in the vast majority of languages).