And, given your post on the JIT optimizations for unsafe operations, I can see where they are truly unsafe (in terms of possibly crashing instead of just erroring.) When I make the changes to use the unsafe-fl/unsafe-fx operations, I'll change to using unsafe- as a prefix for the science collection operations. Doug <div class="gmail_quote">On Sat, Oct 3, 2009 at 10:33 AM, Matthew Flatt <<a href="mailto:mflatt@cs.utah.edu">mflatt@cs.utah.edu</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="im">At Sun, 6 Sep 2009 18:59:01 -0600, Doug Williams wrote: > Would it be better to call > the operations 'unchecked-<whatever>' instead of 'unsafe-<whatever>'? > Generally, we are calling the function because we know it is safe to avoid > some constraint check - not because it is unsafe. Just a nit. </div>Despite the distinction between unsafety for performance and unsafety to get at new things, I like having all unsafe operations marked the same way. Also, "unchecked" doesn't sound dangerous enough to me. So, you make a good point, but I'm still in favor of "unsafe". </blockquote></div>