That&#x27;s a very intriguing block of code there. I&#x27;d like to think that while Rust may not have been designed to guarantee that leaks are prevented, it so happens that anything that <i>could</i> leak memory sticks out like a sore thumb in code review, since the code to get something to leak needs to be explicit. I&#x27;d consider a global variable or a channel that has the possibility of not reading all its values to follow that pattern. Whereas it&#x27;s much easier to get something &quot;stuck&quot; in memory without a reference in C++. But you&#x27;re absolutely right that memory safety does not at all imply &quot;leak&quot; safety, nor is the latter well defined at all!