Well, first of all, I guess I am wrong! Hey, I'm not Bill, just a user of the language.

A couple of clarifications, though: I did mean unsafe rust, not the safe subset. No need to get rude!

Second of all, I am of course not under the illusion that Odin prevents use-after-free (and thus, technically, it does allow UB I guess). I just don't think Bill is either. So clearly he doesn't mean UB by the same definition as you do.

_My_ use of UB has always been in the context of what a compiler will do during optimization, and the discussion I've seen in the context of C compilers is that they perform optimizations that remove code or change code in surprising ways because the way the code was written technically resulted in UB. But I'm neither a spec writer or a compiler author, so I don't really care that much about the actual definition of the term.

Anyway, best of luck in convincing Bill to use the term correctly as well! I won't mention UB when talking about the benefits of Odin in the future. :)

> So clearly he doesn't mean UB by the same definition as you do.

Wrong.

> so I don't really care that much about the actual definition of the term.

Yes, it's evident that you don't care what's true or about being accurate.

> Anyway, best of luck in convincing Bill to use the term correctly as well!

He does use it correctly, but his claims that Odin has no UB are incorrect.

Over and out.