Hacker News Reader

There are some things that make this better, such as returning pointer types and not returning raw pointers. Returning raw pointers usually means that another function will delete them. I very rarely see pointers handed back from functions being freed caller side

View on HN

Do you mean references instead of pointers? I'm not familiar of a difference between pointers and raw pointers in C or C++.

C++ allows to be more clear: unique_ptrs allow to move ownership, references mean this is definitely not owned, and the remaining questions are around normal pointers.

With pure C there is however zero distinction. A pointer can mean ownership is transferred, it is meant to be a reference, it could be a static reference to something in constant memory, etc.

I meant pointers versus types such unique_ptr and shared_ptr

You will lost his (*_ptr) magic cuz types match is not compatible. Mem must be free on the allocation side, kind of law.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com