Doc gen: separate safe and unsafe procedures

[dom96]

Inspired by the documentation for asyncnet, in particular this function: https://nim-lang.org/docs/asyncnet.html#recvInto,AsyncSocket,pointer,int

I think it would make sense to visually separate safe and unsafe procedures under two different headings. I think discouraging the use of unsafe procedures is a good idea.

[Araq]

How would the docgen know. Nobody is working on this, closing.

[dom96]

Are you going to close all issues that nobody is working on?

How would the docgen know.

Simple:

• Does the function either take or return a ptr? if so then it's unsafe.

[alehander92]

That's not a very good definition of safe IMO: can other functions segfault? yes, do we have a way to always detect that? not really: I am worried for e.g. people coming from Rust see a function marked as "safe" crash

[timotheecour]

That's not a very good definition of safe IMO

indeed (would lead to both false positives and false negatives)

D has concept of @safe @trusted and @system as explained here https://dlang.org/spec/memory-safe-d.html
In the D implementation, It leads to using a proliferation of attributes in code that is painful to use
Unless Nim has a better way to handle it with minimal amount of required attributes (eg full program analysis) (eg similar to effect system or exception tracking or some pragmas), it wouldn't be worth it

[krux02]

This isn't an issue, it is just an opinion. People can agree to it or not. But I think if nobody is active in issues like these anymore, yes they should be closed. There is no point to keep them around.

[Araq]

Here is what to do: Add an "UNSAFE!" scream to the documetation of the procs we think require it.