Key word for dimensionally unsafe actions about dimensioned HOT 4 OPEN

I can't think of something better than unsafe. I think unsafe is sometimes used in rust even when memory safety is not at issue (but only correctness). I think that bypassing compile-time guarantees could qualify as unsafe. e.g. interpreting a 32-bit integer as a f32 is unsafe, even though it cannot lead to any memory corruption issues. It's only unsafe because it might give different answers on different architectures. But broadly speaking, dimensioned is preventing precisely the same kind of thing: accidentally treating a value as a different type of value.

from dimensioned.

Rust's unsafe keyword is not so much about memory safety as it is about Undefined Behavior, and I feel that this usage of the term cheapens its meaning. I hope you may still consider changing this before an eventual 1.0.

I do not feel there needs to be a single term for this applicable in all contexts; one could call the member value_raw (or to really discourage its use, something unwieldy like internal_value). The phrase "dimensionally unsafe" can be replaced with phrases like "dimensionality is (un-)checked".

Re: integers to floats, f64::to_bits and from_bits (stabilized in 1.20) are unapologetically marked safe. There's a note on the latter that it may or may not mask signalling NaNs... but to my understanding, the question isn't whether or not Rust wants to provide "no signalling NaNs" as a guarantee, but rather, it's because nobody in the community really knows whether LLVM (or other platforms) considers them to invoke UB.

from dimensioned.

Unsafe it is!

from dimensioned.

Reopening this issue to be considered for the next batch of breaking changes (which will likely be when const generics are a thing).

from dimensioned.