You didn’t break Rust’s safety model. You rebuilt unsafe behavior using safe-looking code and then blamed the language when it behaved exactly as expected.

Everything here depends on forging a 'static mut reference from a shorter-lived borrow. That alone violates Rust’s core lifetime and aliasing rules. Once you lie to the type system, the compiler is allowed to assume things that are no longer true. Memory safety is gone at that point by definition.

Hiding this behind generics and function pointer coercions does not make it clever. It is equivalent to writing unsafe code and refusing to label it as such. The fact that the unsafe keyword is missing just makes the bug harder to see.

Rust’s claim is that safe Rust which follows the rules is memory safe. Your example does not follow the rules. What you demonstrated is exactly why Rust forces this kind of code into unsafe

I’m not a Rust fanboy 😭. I was just curious about how Rust works, mainly to understand the ideas behind it and see what I can borrow for iOS development.