Re: Introducing 'safety' compilation parameter

[Stefan Monnier <monnier@iro.umontreal.ca>]

> I didn't want to give safety a prefix (byte- or comp-) as I believe we
> should extend safety in the future with a value to have the byte
> compiler generates runtime type checks to verify the declred types.

I don't see a strong need for a namespace prefix, but I think "safety"
is too general a term.  It could be understood to apply also to
unrelated circumstances such as process confinement or disclosure of
sensitive info over a network connection.
Maybe `elisp-safety` or `compilation-safety`?

If I read your patch correctly, we get safety in a roundabout way:
rather than test the safety setting at the spot where we decide to apply
(or not) a dangerous optimization, we use the safety setting to
"mollify" the type annotations (presumably because this will in turn
make the risky optimizations inapplicable).

What is the reason for that?


        Stefan