The number of cases where i have to use a generic memory allocator like malloc in a typical project are extremely rare, so no.
I never said that const is like anything, i just used it as an example.
I never said that const is like anything, i just used it as an example.
Also, sure the implementation of another allocator might use a smattering of `unsafe`, but I'm guess that it will be less than you probably expect: one of Rust's biggest is strengths is the ability to build safe interfaces for things without performance cost. One can see an example for this in http://os.phil-opp.com/ where the author is slowly describing creating an operating system, all while concentrating on how to exploit Rust features to let the compiler help the programmer, such as http://os.phil-opp.com/modifying-page-tables.html .
In fact, "how to to either of these things" is such a common question for new rust programmers trying to solve their borrow checker complaints that it constitutes pretty good evidence people are doing these things all the time with little understanding of why they are problematic.
And even if you _do_ know better, circumventing the borrow checker is fairly trivial.
How's returning a pointer to stack ever safe?