New and better keyword for unsafe

[Ph0enixKM]

Since unsafe is not precisely what Rust's unsafe is, I want to make a poll for a new better and more precise keyword. The full discussion on why it may not be the best pick can be found in this issue: #296

If you have some better idea then please comment below. The poll will be updated accordingly.

[b1ek]

this new keyword will be harder, better, faster, stronger

[mks-h]

How I'd read force naturally (without reading an explanation) would be more like "force the compiler to run the command without any handling mechanisms", and that would make no sense, as the command is ran anyway. assume seems to be a better keyword, although not ideally understandable either.

[karpfediem]

I feel like unsafe is fine, different languages can use keywords differently
Otherwise some keyword ideas could maybe be unchecked, raw or trust(ed)

Maybe even infallible

[mks-h]

trust is an interesting one

[Mte90]

Indeed, maybe we found the perfect alternative?

AS we will have trust and failed so it is quite clear.

[KrosFire]

I think that assume and trust are veeery simmilar. @Ph0enixKM maybe add it to the poll?

[Ph0enixKM]

@Mte90 @karpfediem @mks-h @b1ek @KrosFire I've updated the poll

[UrbanCoffee]

I'm also think that unsafe is fine. It's pretty direct about unchecked commands not being entirely safe.

[Ph0enixKM]

Thank you for your votes. As the last change I’d like to also add the original unsafe keyword to the poll.

@Mte90 @karpfediem @mks-h @b1ek @KrosFire @UrbanCoffee

[Ph0enixKM]

Thank you for your votes. As the last change I’d like to also add the original unsafe keyword to the poll.

@Mte90 @karpfediem @mks-h @b1ek @KrosFire @UrbanCoffee

[Ph0enixKM]

So the trust keyword that is. Thank you for your votes!