What does “&*” do in Rust? [duplicate] - rust

This question already has answers here:
What does &* combined together do in Rust?
(2 answers)
Closed 5 months ago.
I encountered this block of code while reading documentation from a Rust library:
for (ent, pos, vel) in (&*entities, &mut pos_storage, &vel_storage).join() {
println!("Processing entity: {:?}", ent);
*pos += *vel;
}
What does &*entities do here? From what I can tell it’s dereferencing entities and then referencing it again. But why?

This is an explicit reborrow and it's a common idiom that pops up in Rust from time to time.
& in an expression only has one meaning: it takes an expression (which must be a place expression) of type T and borrows a reference to it of type &T.
For references, * does the opposite of & -- it takes a reference (&T) and makes a place expression of type T. But * can mean different things with different kinds of pointers, since you can override it by implementing Deref. Because * ties in some compiler magic that automatically dereferences the return value of Deref::deref, you can borrow the result of *, turning it back into a plain reference, by using the & operator.
So &*foo is a way of explicitly reborrowing "any kind of pointer to T" as a &T, and is the equivalent of manually calling Deref::deref(&foo).
(The above explanation also works for &mut borrows -- just replace & with &mut and Deref with DerefMut.)
It's not clear in the example you link what entities is, but it's probably some kind of smart pointer, where the join() method requires a plain reference. For another example where this is required, consider using [&str]::concat to concatenate a String with some &strs:
// I want to concatenate this with some other strings
let s = String::from("Amelia");
// The following won't compile: you can't make an array of &str and String
assert_eq!(["Hello", ", ", s].concat(), "Hello, Amelia"); // WRONG
// However, &*s takes a reference to the str pointed to by s.
assert_eq!(["Hello", ", ", &*s].concat(), "Hello, Amelia"); // OK
See also
Is there a difference between slicing and an explicit reborrow when converting Strings to &strs?
Box<T> to &T in Rust

Related

Calculate object A, then return object B that references A in Rust

In my code I often want to calculate a new value A, and then return some view of that value B, because B is a type that's more convenient to work with. The simplest case is where A is a vector and B is a slice that I would like to return. Let's say I want to write a function that returns a set of indices. Ideally this would return a slice directly because then I can use it immediately to index a string.
If I return a vector instead of a slice, I have to use to_slice:
fn all_except(except: usize, max:usize) -> Vec<usize> {
(0..except).chain((except + 1)..max).collect()
}
"abcdefg"[all_except(1, 7)]
string indices are ranges of `usize`
the type `str` cannot be indexed by `Vec<usize>`
help: the trait `SliceIndex<str>` is not implemented for `Vec<usize>`
I can't return a slice directly:
fn all_except(except: usize, max:usize) -> &[usize] {
(0..except).chain((except + 1)..max).collect()
}
"abcdefg"[all_except(1, 7)]
^ expected named lifetime parameter
missing lifetime specifier
help: this function's return type contains a borrowed value with an elided lifetime, but the lifetime cannot be derived from the arguments
help: consider using the `'static` lifetime
I can't even return the underlying vector and a slice of it, for the same reason
pub fn except(index: usize, max: usize) -> (&[usize], Vec<usize>) {
let v = (0..index).chain((index + 1)..max).collect();
(v, v.as_slice)
}
"abcdefg"[all_except(1, 7)[1]
Now it may be possible to hack this particular example using deref coercion (I'm not sure), but I have encountered this problem with more complex types. For example, I have a function that loads an ndarray::Array2<T> from CSV file, then want to split it into two parts using array.split_at(), but this returns two ArrayView2<T> which reference the original Array2<T>, so I encounter the same issue. In general I'm wondering if there's a solution to this problem in general. Can I somehow tell the compiler to move A into the parent frame's scope, or let me return a tuple of (A, B), where it realises that the slice is still valid because A is still alive?
Your code doesn't seem to make any sense, you can't index a string using a slice. If you could the first snippet would have worked with just an as_slice in the caller or something, vecs trivially coerce to slices. That's exactly what the compiler error is telling you: the compiler is looking for a SliceIndex and a Vec (or slice) is definitely not that.
That aside,
Can I somehow tell the compiler to move A into the parent frame's scope, or let me return a tuple of (A, B), where it realises that the slice is still valid because A is still alive?
There are packages like owning_ref which can bundle owner and reference to avoid extra allocations. It tends to be somewhat fiddly.
I don't think there's any other general solution, because Rust reasons at the function level, the type checker has no notion of "tell the compiler to move A into the parent scope". So you need a construct which works around borrow checker.

Slice of String vs Slice &String

I was reading the doc from rust lang website and in chapter 4 they did the following example:
let s = String::from("hello world");
let hello = &s[0..5];
let world = &s[6..11];
hello is of type &str that I created from a variable s of type String.
Some rows below they define the following function:
fn first_word(s: &String) -> &str {
let bytes = s.as_bytes();
for (i, &item) in bytes.iter().enumerate() {
if item == b' ' {
return &s[0..i];
}
}
&s[..]
}
This time s is of type &String but still &s[0..i] gave me a &str slice.
How is it possible? I thought that the correct way to achieve this would be something like &((*str)[0..i]).
Am I missing something? Maybe during the [0..i] operation Rust auto deference the variable?
Thanks
Maybe during the [0..i] operation Rust auto deference the variable?
This is exactly what happens. When you call methods/index a reference, it automatically dereferences before applying the method. This behavior can also be manually implemented with the Deref trait. String implements the Deref with a target of str, which means when you call str methods on String. Read more about deref coercion here.
It's important to realize what happens with &s[1..5], and that it's &(s[1..5]), namely, s[1..5] is first first evaluated, this returns a value of type str, and a reference to that value is taken. In fact, there's even more indirection: x[y] in rust is actually syntactic sugar for *std::ops::Index::index(x,y). Note the dereference, as this function always returns a reference, which is then dereferenced by the sugar, and then it is referenced again by the & in our code — naturally, the compiler will optimize this and ensure we are not pointlessly taking references to only dereference them again.
It so happens that the String type does support the Index<Range<usize>> trait and it's Index::output type is str.
It also happens that the str type supports the same, and that it's output type is also str, viā a blanket implementation of SliceIndex.
On your question of auto-dereferencing, it is true that Rust has a Deref trait defined on String as well so that in many contexts, such as this one, &String is automatically cast to &str — any context that accepts a &str also accepts a &String, meaning that the implementation on Index<usize> on String is actually for optimization to avoid this indirection. If it not were there, the code would still work, and perhaps the compiler could even optimize the indirection away.
But that automatic casting is not why it works — it simply works because indexing is defined on many different types.
Finally:
I thought that the correct way to achieve this would be something like &((*str)[0..i]).
This would not work regardless, a &str is not the same as a &String and cannot be dereferenced to a String like a &String. In fact, a &str in many ways is closer to a String than it is to a &String. a &str is really just a fat pointer to a sequence of unicode bytes, also containing the length of said sequence in the second word; a String is, if one will, an extra-fat pointer that also contains the current capacity of the buffer with it, and owns the buffer it points to, so it can delete and resize it.

About trait Index implement of Vector in Rust [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
What is the return type of the indexing operation?
(2 answers)
Closed 4 years ago.
I check Index trait in doc and find return type of index() is &T.
Then I write this function to get value from vector:
fn get_value_test(a: usize, v: &Vec<i32>) -> i32 {
v[a]
}
My question is: why v[a] is i32 but &i32? Because i32 ...have a known size at compile time are stored entirely on the stack, so copies of the actual values are quick to make? (from here)
It looks like Rust have hidden rule to convert type in this situation?
There was a small misguidance here. Although the method prototype for Index<Idx> is fn index(&self, index: Idx) -> &T, the syntactical operator x[i] does dereference the output from that &T:
container[index] is actually syntactic sugar for *container.index(index) [...]. This allows nice things such as let value = v[index] if the type of value implements Copy.
So there you go. Your function is indeed returning a copy of the value from the vector, but not from an implicit conversion. If the original intent was to really retrieve a reference to that value, you would do &x[i].
See also:
Meaning of the ampersand '&' and star '*' symbols in Rust
Does Rust automatically dereference primitive type references?

What does &* combined together do in Rust?

I was reading through the book section about Strings and found they were using &* combined together to convert a piece of text. The following is what it says:
use std::net::TcpStream;
TcpStream::connect("192.168.0.1:3000"); // Parameter is of type &str.
let addr_string = "192.168.0.1:3000".to_string();
TcpStream::connect(&*addr_string); // Convert `addr_string` to &str.
In other words, they are saying they are converting a String to a &str. But why is that conversion done using both of the aforementioned signs? Should this not be done using some other method? Does not the & mean we are taking its reference, then using the * to dereference it?
In short: the * triggers an explicit deref, which can be overloaded via ops::Deref.
More Detail
Look at this code:
let s = "hi".to_string(); // : String
let a = &s;
What's the type of a? It's simply &String! This shouldn't be very surprising, since we take the reference of a String. Ok, but what about this?
let s = "hi".to_string(); // : String
let b = &*s; // equivalent to `&(*s)`
What's the type of b? It's &str! Wow, what happened?
Note that *s is executed first. As most operators, the dereference operator * is also overloadable and the usage of the operator can be considered syntax sugar for *std::ops::Deref::deref(&s) (note that we recursively dereferencing here!). String does overload this operator:
impl Deref for String {
type Target = str;
fn deref(&self) -> &str { ... }
}
So, *s is actually *std::ops::Deref::deref(&s), in which the deref() function has the return type &str which is then dereferenced again. Thus, *s has the type str (note the lack of &).
Since str is unsized and not very handy on its own, we'd like to have a reference to it instead, namely &str. We can do this by adding a & in front of the expression! Tada, now we reached the type &str!
&*s is rather the manual and explicit form. Often, the Deref-overload is used via automatic deref coercion. When the target type is fixed, the compiler will deref for you:
fn takes_string_slice(_: &str) {}
let s = "hi".to_string(); // : String
takes_string_slice(&s); // this works!
In general, &* means to first dereference (*) and then reference (&) a value. In many cases, this would be silly, as we'd end up at the same thing.
However, Rust has deref coercions. Combined with the Deref and DerefMut traits, a type can dereference to a different type!
This is useful for Strings as that means that they can get all the methods from str, it's useful for Vec<T> as it gains the methods from [T], and it's super useful for all the smart pointers, like Box<T>, which will have all the methods of the contained T!
Following the chain for String:
String --deref--> str --ref--> &str
Does not the & mean we are taking its reference, then using the * to dereference it?
No, your order of operations is backwards. * and & associate to the right. In this example, dereferencing is first, then referencing.
I think now you can do this &addr_string
(from a comment)
Sometimes, this will do the same thing. See What are Rust's exact auto-dereferencing rules? for the full details, but yes, a &String can be passed to a function that requires a &str. There are still times where you need to do this little dance by hand. The most common I can think of is:
let name: Option<String> = Some("Hello".to_string());
let name2: Option<&str> = name.as_ref().map(|s| &**s);
You'll note that we actually dereference twice:
&String -->deref--> String --deref--> str --ref--> &str
Although this case can now be done with name.as_ref().map(String::as_str);

Why does the argument for the find closure need two ampersands?

I have been playing with Rust by porting my Score4 AI engine to it - basing the work on my functional-style implementation in OCaml. I specifically wanted to see how Rust fares with functional-style code.
The end result: It works, and it's very fast - much faster than OCaml. It almost touches the speed of imperative-style C/C++ - which is really cool.
There's a thing that troubles me, though — why do I need two ampersands in the last line of this code?
let moves_and_scores: Vec<_> = moves_and_boards
.iter()
.map(|&(column,board)| (column, score_board(&board)))
.collect();
let target_score = if maximize_or_minimize {
ORANGE_WINS
} else {
YELLOW_WINS
};
if let Some(killer_move) = moves_and_scores.iter()
.find(|& &(_,score)| score==target_score) {
...
I added them is because the compiler errors "guided" me to it; but I am trying to understand why... I used the trick mentioned elsewhere in Stack Overflow to "ask" the compiler to tell me what type something is:
let moves_and_scores: Vec<_> = moves_and_boards
.iter()
.map(|&(column,board)| (column, score_board(&board)))
.collect();
let () = moves_and_scores;
...which caused this error:
src/main.rs:108:9: 108:11 error: mismatched types:
expected `collections::vec::Vec<(u32, i32)>`,
found `()`
(expected struct `collections::vec::Vec`,
found ()) [E0308]
src/main.rs:108 let () = moves_and_scores;
...as I expected, moves_and_scores is a vector of tuples: Vec<(u32, i32)>. But then, in the immediate next line, iter() and find() force me to use the hideous double ampersands in the closure parameter:
if let Some(killer_move) = moves_and_scores.iter()
.find(|& &(_,score)| score==target_score) {
Why does the find closure need two ampersands? I could see why it may need one (pass the tuple by reference to save time/space) but why two? Is it because of the iter? That is, is the iter creating references, and then find expects a reference on each input, so a reference on a reference?
If this is so, isn't this, arguably, a rather ugly design flaw in Rust?
In fact, I would expect find and map and all the rest of the functional primitives to be parts of the collections themselves. Forcing me to iter() to do any kind of functional-style work seems burdensome, and even more so if it forces this kind of "double ampersands" in every possible functional chain.
I am hoping I am missing something obvious - any help/clarification most welcome.
This here
moves_and_scores.iter()
gives you an iterator over borrowed vector elements. If you follow the API doc what type this is, you'll notice that it's just the iterator for a borrowed slice and this implements Iterator with Item=&T where T is (u32, i32) in your case.
Then, you use find which takes a predicate which takes a &Item as parameter. Sice Item already is a reference in your case, the predicate has to take a &&(u32, i32).
pub trait Iterator {
...
fn find<P>(&mut self, predicate: P) -> Option<Self::Item>
where P: FnMut(&Self::Item) -> bool {...}
... ^
It was probably defined like this because it's only supposed to inspect the item and return a bool. This does not require the item being passed by value.
If you want an iterator over (u32, i32) you could write
moves_and_scores.iter().cloned()
cloned() converts the iterator from one with an Item type &T to one with an Item type T if T is Clone. Another way to do it would be to use into_iter() instead of iter().
moves_and_scores.into_iter()
The difference between the two is that the first option clones the borrowed elements while the 2nd one consumes the vector and moves the elements out of it.
By writing the lambda like this
|&&(_, score)| score == target_score
you destructure the "double reference" and create a local copy of the i32. This is allowed since i32 is a simple type that is Copy.
Instead of destructuring the parameter of your predicate you could also write
|move_and_score| move_and_score.1 == target_score
because the dot operator automatically dereferences as many times as needed.

Resources