clarify validity for prtially initialized local variables

diff --git a/personal/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md b/personal/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md
index 2e4ff3102d0dbd0a51ffc77eed87b11cdf2a5b89..c54a0101833990a2b889f8a4109e6d86dbafe58c 100644 (file)
--- a/personal/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md
+++ b/personal/_posts/2018-08-22-two-kinds-of-invariants.md
@@ -108,10 +108,11 @@ That is where safe code should be able to rely on safety, so that it can interac
 
 This is in strong contrast to validity, which must *always* hold.
 Layout optimizations and LLVM's attributes are in effect throughout unsafe code, so it is never okay to ever have invalid data.
 
 This is in strong contrast to validity, which must *always* hold.
 Layout optimizations and LLVM's attributes are in effect throughout unsafe code, so it is never okay to ever have invalid data.

+(With the sole restriction of data which *the compiler statically knows is not initialized*: If you write `let b: bool;`, that data in `b` is kept inaccessible *even to unsafe code*, and it does not have to satisfy any invariant. This works because the compiler knows about `b` not being initialized.)

 
 > *Unsafe code must always uphold validity invariants.*
 
 
 > *Unsafe code must always uphold validity invariants.*
 

-So we clearly cannot just pick the same invariant for both.
+So we clearly cannot just pick the same invariant for both, or else it would be impossible to write `Vec`.

 We *might* want to just ignore user-defined invariants when it comes to validity, but I think that would be ill-advised.
 
 First of all, validity is part of the definition of undefined behavior.
 We *might* want to just ignore user-defined invariants when it comes to validity, but I think that would be ill-advised.
 
 First of all, validity is part of the definition of undefined behavior.