> Let us ask the question: Is there anything inherently unsafe about multiple (even mutable) references to an object? I think the problem with your example her

> Let us ask the question: Is there anything inherently unsafe about multiple (even mutable) references to an object? I think the problem with your example here is that it's a bit simplistic. In your example, if we drop the concept of ownership, sure it's not unsafe they can both point to the same allocation. But multiple mutable references can absolutely be a big issue. For example: pub enum Thing { AA(i32), BB(String), } pub fn foo() { let mut thing = Thing::BB(String::from("Hello")); let Thing::BB(str_ref) = &mut thing else {unreachable!()}; bar(&mut thing); println!("{str_ref}"); } fn bar(_: &mut Thing) { ... }; Without knowing the body of `bar` it's not possible to determine whether `foo` is sound. `bar` could change the enum to the `AA` variant, at which point `str_ref` is now pointing at an integer and some padding bytes, not a String. We've violated type safety, and read uninitialized memory both in the enum itself and in the now-dropped heap allocation.