[dist1ll]

> every unwrap in production code needs an INFALLIBILITY comment. clippy::unwrap_used can enforce this.

How about indexing into a slice/map/vec? Should every `foo[i]` have an infallibility comment? Because they're essentially `get(i).unwrap()`.

[10000truths]

Yes? Funnily enough, I don't often use indexed access in Rust. Either I'm looping over elements of a data structure (in which case I use iterators), or I'm using an untrusted index value (in which case I explicitly handle the error case). In the rare case where I'm using an index value that I can guarantee is never invalid (e.g. graph traversal where the indices are never exposed outside the scope of the traversal), then I create a safe wrapper around the unsafe access and document the invariant.

[dist1ll]

If that's the case then hats off. What you're describing is definitely not what I've seen in practice. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen a crate or production codebase that documents infallibility of every single slice access. Even security-critical cryptography crates that passed audits don't do that. Personally, I found it quite hard to avoid indexing for graph-heavy code, so I'm always on the lookout for interesting ways to enforce access safety. If you have some code to share that would be very interesting.

[tux3]

Usually you'd want to write almost all your slice or other container iterations with iterators, in a functional style.

For the 5% of cases that are too complex for standard iterators? I never bother justifying why my indexes are correct, but I don't see why not.

You very rarely need SAFETY comments in Rust because almost all the code you write is safe in the first place. The language also gives you the tool to avoid manual iteration (not just for safety, but because it lets the compiler eliminate bounds checks), so it would actually be quite viable to write these comments, since you only need them when you're doing something unusual.

[wrs]

I didn't restate the context from the code we're discussing: it must not panic. If you don't care if the code panics, then go ahead and unwrap/expect/index, because that conforms to your chosen error handling scheme. This is fine for lots of things like CLI tools or isolated subprocesses, and makes review a lot easier.

So: first, identify code that cannot be allowed to panic. Within that code, yes, in the rare case that you use [i], you need to at least try to justify why you think it'll be in bounds. But it would be better not to.

There are a couple of attempts at getting the compiler to prove that code can't panic (e.g., the no-panic crate).

[dist1ll]

For iteration, yes. But there's other cases, like any time you have to deal with lots of linked data structures. If you need high performance, chances are that you'll have to use an index+arena strategy. They're also common in mathematical codebases.

[danielheath]

I mean... yeah, in general. That's what iterators are for.