Re: [PATCH 1/3] rust: add Aliased type

[Christian Schrefl]

On 23.01.25 9:24 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 09:18:33PM +0100, Christian Schrefl wrote:
>> On 23.01.25 7:25 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 07:04:40PM +0100, Christian Schrefl wrote:
>>>> Hi Boqun
>>>>
>>>> On 23.01.25 6:56 PM, Boqun Feng wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Jan 23, 2025 at 11:21:23AM +0100, Christian Schrefl wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>> [1]: https://lore.kernel.org/rust-for-linux/Z407egxOy7oNLpq8@boqun-archlinux/
>>>>>>> [2]: https://rust-lang.github.io/rfcs/3467-unsafe-pinned.html#naming
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't particularly care about the name, I mostly used aliased, because that's
>>>>>> the name that Alice originally used.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> `(Always)Shared` seems confusing to me.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I guess we can use `UnsafePinned`, but most people won't know what that means,
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmm.. but doesn't `Aliased` have the same effect, i.e. most people won't
>>>>> know what that means? Moreover, people who already knows `UnsafePinned`
>>>>> will still take some time to realize "`Aliased` is actually
>>>>> `UnsafePinned`
>>>>
>>>> I guess I'll name it `UnsafePinned` then.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> also I'm not sure if it's a good Idea to use the same name as a (future) 
>>>>>> language type.
>>>>>
>>>>> The benefit is that we won't re-invent the wheel since `UnsafePinned`
>>>>> already does what `Aliased` does here. If we don't have a good name, we
>>>>> should use the one that most people are already using. Honestly, at this
>>>>> point, I think we should just use the unstable feature unsafe_pinned.
>>>>
>>>> I think that's not implemented in rustc yet.
>>>> At least no implementation is linked in the tracking issue:
>>>> https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125735
>>>>
>>>> Once that's implemented we can use a `cfg` to disable this 
>>>> implementation on new versions that provide it.
>>>> (Assuming we use the same API)
>>>>
>>>
>>> Sounds good to me, thanks!
>>
>> From reading the RFC It seems that `UnsafePinned<T>` should contain a `T`
>> directly instead of `UnsafeCell<T>` so I should probably also change my 
>> version it to match.
>>
> 
> Per
> 
> 	https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/125735#issuecomment-2299183374
> 
> , I think you still want to use `UnsafeCell<T>`.

Ah thanks for the quick response, I'll keep the `UnsafeCell<T>` then.

> 
> Regards,
> Boqun
> 
>> Cheers
>> Christian
>>