There is, unfortunately, one exception: In our tests, we compare the results of our safe transmute function against the regular std::mem::transmute function. Perhaps somewhat shortsightedly, the standard library implementation is unsafe. Regardless, this is only in our tests - the core library has no unsafe code.
It is possible to use mem::transmute to transmute lifetimes of objects, whereas cve_rs is constrained to only 'static lifetimes for A and B. I do not know whether you intend to relax this bound using further research in Extremely Safe Rust, or whether this was merely something you had overlooked when evaluating the power of mem::transmute, but I felt a clarification (or feature request?) was in order.
Regarding your README:
It is possible to use
mem::transmute
to transmute lifetimes of objects, whereascve_rs
is constrained to only'static
lifetimes for A and B. I do not know whether you intend to relax this bound using further research in Extremely Safe Rust, or whether this was merely something you had overlooked when evaluating the power ofmem::transmute
, but I felt a clarification (or feature request?) was in order.