From: lars@beagle-ears.com   
      
   On 2026-02-04, Robert Riches  wrote:   
   > On 2026-02-04, c186282  wrote:   
   >> On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote:   
   >>> And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years   
   >>> ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed   
   >>> around.  Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the   
   >>> pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules.   
   >>   
   >>    It's been a few years ... however I did download   
   >>    the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around   
   >>    with it some to see how it's come along and whether   
   >>    it's worth it.   
   >>   
   >>    However my recollection was that if you can do   
   >>    it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as   
   >>    easily.   
   >>   
   >>    "Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look   
   >>    into Ada, if you dare  :-)   
   >   
   > Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory.  The term is   
   > "ownership":   
   >   
   > https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html   
   >   
   > https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_s   
   fety/pointers.html   
   >   
   > I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one   
   > of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates   
   > memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because   
   > that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner   
   > goes out of scope, the value will be dropped."  Largely, it's   
   > that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported   
   > from C to Rust.  Workarounds to that restriction are required in   
   > Rust that are not required in C.   
      
   And that is EXACTLY why Rust is "safer" than C.   
      
   --   
   Lars Poulsen - an old geek in Santa Barbara, California   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)