Tracking Issue for `hint::assert_unchecked`

[scottmcm]

Feature gate: #![feature(hint_assert_unchecked)]

This is a tracking issue for ...

Public API

// core::hint

pub const unsafe fn assert_unchecked(p: bool);

Steps / History

• ACP: Add hint::assume libs-team#315
• Implementation: Add hint::assert_unchecked #119133
• Final comment period (FCP)¹
• Stabilization PR

Unresolved Questions

• Naming, as always: Add hint::assume libs-team#315 (comment)

Footnotes

1. https://std-dev-guide.rust-lang.org/feature-lifecycle/stabilization.html ↩

[scottmcm]

Hello libs-api folks! I'm nominating this (at low priority) because when the open issue is the name, I think it mostly needs your input to make progress.

[bend-n]

What if the name was safety_invariant?

    unsafe fn get_unchecked(self, slice: *const [T]) -> *const T {
        unsafe { slice.as_ptr().add(self) }
        unsafe {
            safety_invariant(self < slice.len());
            slice.as_ptr().add(self)
        }
    }

[Amanieu]

We discussed this in the libs-api meeting and we're happy with assert_unchecked because it follows the existing pattern of _unchecked functions in the standard library.

@rfcbot fcp merge

[rfcbot]

Team member @Amanieu has proposed to merge this. The next step is review by the rest of the tagged team members:

• @Amanieu
• @BurntSushi
• @dtolnay
• @joshtriplett
• @m-ou-se

Concerns:

• doc-example resolved by Tracking Issue for hint::assert_unchecked #119131 (comment)

Once a majority of reviewers approve (and at most 2 approvals are outstanding), this will enter its final comment period. If you spot a major issue that hasn't been raised at any point in this process, please speak up!

See this document for info about what commands tagged team members can give me.