If that's the case, I don't think it should be calling raptor_uri_copy, which allocates a whole new URI object (not just changing some reference counts). It cou

If that's the case, I don't think it should be calling raptor_uri_copy, which allocates a whole new URI object (not just changing some reference counts). It could instead provide a "URI full_copy()" method that better models how the C API works. Even then, it still isn't safe, because D doesn't (yet) seem to have the tools required to tie this sort of non-owning reference to the owning object, to avoid the dangling pointer problem mentioned in the article.