6 ms·
Am I missing anything in the article about this problem in particular? Owning references are a part of modern C++, which should be covered by the author's argum
by Attrecomet 1y ago
Am I missing anything in the article about this problem in particular? Owning references are a part of modern C++, which should be covered by the author's arguments.
- aw1621107 1y ago> Owning references are a part of modern C++ Maybe we're thinking of different things, but I don't think C++ has owning references, modern or not? There's regular references (&) which are definitely not owning, and owning pointers (unique_ptr and friends), but neither of those quite match Rust's &.
- Attrecomet 1y agoAh, okay, that is a good point. I was not aware of that subtle difference, and replaced "owning reference" with "owning pointer" in my mind.
- steveklabnik 1y agoI think your parent may be slightly confused, in the sense of terminology: "owning reference" is a contradiction in Rust terms. Here's the document I believe your parent is referring to: https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSt2VB1zQAJ6JDMaIA9PlmEgBxz2K5Tx6w2JqJNeYCy0gU4aoubdTxlENSKNSrQ2TXqPWcuwtXe6PlO/pub https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vSt2VB1zQAJ6JDMa... The claim in the article: > Yes, C++ can be made safer; in fact, it can even be made memory safe. The claim from this document: > We attempted to represent ownership and borrowing through the C++ type system, however the language does not lend itself to this. Thus memory safety in C++ would need to be achieved through runtime checks. It doesn't use "owning reference" anywhere.
- Attrecomet 1y agoThanks for the clarification! However, I also got confused, and just subsituted "pointer" for "reference" in my head. References, apart from smart pointers, are indeed a problem for memory safety.
- kronicum2025 1y agoI meant to say exclusively owned references.