{
  "$type": "site.standard.document",
  "bskyPostRef": {
    "cid": "bafyreihr3c34iwiijbiuyq7yseots673abdcvpwovs7mo5zgvqgmeayfau",
    "uri": "at://did:plc:ivbknywyskln22er3nkssdhl/app.bsky.feed.post/3mptre2w26ur2"
  },
  "path": "/t/language-vision-regarding-safety-guarantees/24418?page=3#post_58",
  "publishedAt": "2026-07-04T19:02:58.000Z",
  "site": "https://internals.rust-lang.org",
  "textContent": "tczajka:\n\n> BTW, you seem to be confusing \"using `BTreeMap` in your own `unsafe` code\" vs \"using `unsafe` APIs of `BTreeMap`\". These are two separate choices. It's possible to use safe `BTreeMap` APIs in your own `unsafe` code.\n\nI don't think I do. I'm exclusively talking about the first (since I'm only interested in safety properties of safe code in dependencies). But anyway, I think we agree overall, simply with different words.\n\nAlso thanks to your perspective there's a better candidate to what a fully explicit version of \"safe code cannot cause UB\" could mean (finally got the time to update the top post summary).",
  "title": "Language vision regarding safety guarantees"
}