{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreidb63i7s42e2zooa4pyqrvrtbe2jl6bbye6oil2nlqess4iuyqi3m",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3me7ehs7w3wh2"
  },
  "path": "/t/pre-rfc-rust-safety-standard/23963?page=4#post_71",
  "publishedAt": "2026-02-06T15:24:28.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "textContent": "Your point about the implicit right to insert UB is critical. This focus on \"cross-version stability\" is exactly what seems necessary here.\n\nAs a developer deeply invested in code safety and soundness, I'm curious: How do we translate this future-proofing requirement into the actionable guidance of the Standard? Should the RFC explicitly state that **any** undefined behavior in the contract (even if unreachable in the current implementation) must be treated as a hard failure? I'd love to hear your thoughts on how to word this to ensure developers take the documentation as a strict constraint rather than a suggestion. Thank you~",
  "title": "Pre-RFC: Rust Safety Standard"
}