News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:State Machines and the Strange Case of Mutating API by rumcajz on Tuesday December 25, 2018 @01:54AM (#18756329)
The problem with the C solution is that you'll get hanging pointers. Try using i1 after the code above executes and you'll get a runtime error.
Re:State Machines and the Strange Case of Mutating API by a1369209993 on Tuesday December 25, 2018 @01:45PM (#18758663)
Er, yes; that's what I said (or rather, hanging various things including but not limited to pointers). C only supported the typechecking part of this because it doesn't have any facilities for compile-time linearity checking.

Linearity[0] and dependency[1] checking is what makes Rust a improvement over C, rather than yet another "let's reinvent C++, but slightly less awful" project.

0: "error: no implementation for copy〈T〉","error: no implementation for drop〈T〉"[2]

1: "error: cannot move/destroy x (of type T); y (of type T&'x) outlives it"

Re:State Machines and the Strange Case of Mutating API by capitalsigma on Tuesday December 25, 2018 @02:18AM (#18756406)
You can use C++ unique_ptr and turn on Clang warnings about "use after move", if you want that level of protection.