I can't call Foo::new(words).split_first() in the following code
fn main() {
let words = "Sometimes think, the greatest sorrow than older";
/*
let foo = Foo::new(words);
let first = foo.split_first();
*/
let first = Foo::new(words).split_first();
println!("{}", first);
}
struct Foo<'a> {
part: &'a str,
}
impl<'a> Foo<'a> {
fn split_first(&'a self) -> &'a str {
self.part.split(',').next().expect("Could not find a ','")
}
fn new(s: &'a str) -> Self {
Foo { part: s }
}
}
the compiler will give me an error message
error[E0716]: temporary value dropped while borrowed
--> src/main.rs:8:17
|
8 | let first = Foo::new(words).split_first();
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ - temporary value is freed at the end of this statement
| |
| creates a temporary which is freed while still in use
9 |
10 | println!("{}", first);
| ----- borrow later used here
|
= note: consider using a `let` binding to create a longer lived value
If I bind the value of Foo::new(words) first, then call the split_first method there is no problem.
These two methods of calling should intuitively be the same but are somehow different.
Short answer: remove the 'a lifetime for the self parameter of split_first: fn split_first(&self) -> &'a str (playground).
Long answer:
When you write this code:
struct Foo<'a> {
part: &'a str,
}
impl<'a> Foo<'a> {
fn new(s: &'a str) -> Self {
Foo { part: s }
}
}
You are telling the compiler that all Foo instances are related to some lifetime 'a that must be equal to or shorter than the lifetime of the string passed as parameter to Foo::new. That lifetime 'a may be different from the lifetime of each Foo instance. When you then write:
let words = "Sometimes think, the greatest sorrow than older";
Foo::new(words)
The compiler infers that the lifetime 'a must be equal to or shorter than the lifetime of words. Barring any other constraints the compiler will use the lifetime of words, which is 'static so it is valid for the full life of the program.
When you add your definition of split_first:
fn split_first(&'a self) -> &'a str
You are adding an extra constraint: you are saying that 'a must also be equal to or shorter than the lifetime of self. The compiler will therefore take the shorter of the lifetime of words and the lifetime of the temporary Foo instance, which is the lifetime of the temporary. #AndersKaseorg's answer explains why that doesn't work.
By removing the 'a lifetime on the self parameter, I am decorrelating 'a from the lifetime of the temporary, so the compiler can again infer that 'a is the lifetime of words, which is long enough for the program to work.
Foo::new(words).split_first() would be interpreted roughly as
let tmp = Foo::new(words);
let ret = tmp.split_first();
drop(tmp);
ret
If Rust allowed you to do this, the references in ret would point [edit: would be allowed by the type of split_first to point*] into the now dropped value of tmp. So it’s a good thing that Rust disallows this. If you wrote the equivalent one-liner in C++, you’d silently get undefined behavior.
By writing the let binding yourself, you delay the drop until the end of the scope, thus extending the region where it’s safe to have these references.
For more details, see temporary lifetimes in the Rust Reference.
* Edit: As pointed out by Jmb, the real problem in this particular example is that the type
fn split_first(&'a self) -> &'a str
isn’t specific enough, and a better solution is to refine the type to:
fn split_first<'b>(&'b self) -> &'a str
which can be abbreviated:
fn split_first(&self) -> &'a str
This conveys the intended guarantee that the returned references do not point into the Foo<'a> (only into the string itself).
Related
I have the following code:
struct Solver<'a> {
guesses: Vec<&'a str>,
}
impl<'a> Solver<'a> {
fn register_guess(&mut self, guess: &'a str) {
self.guesses.push(guess);
}
}
fn foo(mut solver: Solver, guess: &str) {
solver.register_guess(guess)
}
It doesn't compile:
|
11 | fn foo(mut solver: Solver, guess: &str) {
| ---------- - let's call the lifetime of this reference `'1`
| |
| has type `Solver<'2>`
12 | solver.register_guess(guess)
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ argument requires that `'1` must outlive `'2`
The error message says that the argument guess must outlive solver. It's plainly obvious to me that that's true: the lifetime of solver ends at the end of the function, and the lifetime of guess doesn't. This seems like something the compiler should be able to infer, and compile without error.
Why isn't that the case? Does this code actually have some way for solver to outlive guess? Or is it just that the compiler doesn't try to do this kind of inference at all?
I know how to fix it --- change the function to fn foo<'a>(mut solver: Solver<'a>, guess: &'a str) --- but I'm asking why I should have to do that.
While solver itself can't outlive guess, the lifetime it refers to very well could. For example, imagine invoking foo() with a Solver<'static>. That kind of solver would expect guess to be &'static str and might store the data referred to by guess in a global variable. (Remember that the compiler doesn't consider what register_guess() does while borrow-checking foo(), it just considers its signature.)
More generally, Solver<'a> might contain references to 'a data that outlives solver itself. Nothing stops register_guess() from storing the contents of guess inside such references. If guess isn't guaranteed to live at least as long as 'a, then foo() is simply unsound. For example, take this alternative definition of Solver:
struct Solver<'a> {
guesses: &'a mut Vec<&'a str>,
}
With unchanged signature of register_guess(), foo() would allow unsound code like this:
fn main() {
let mut guesses = vec![];
let solver = Solver { guesses: &mut guesses };
{
let guess = "foo".to_string();
// stores temporary "foo" to guesses, which outlives it
foo(solver, guess.as_str());
}
println!("{}", guesses[0]); // UB: use after free
}
This error comes from rust's rules of lifetime elision. One of this rules states that:
Each elided lifetime in the parameters becomes a distinct lifetime parameter
Rust conservatively assumes that each not specified lifetime is different. If you want some lifetimes to be equal you must specify it explicitly. Your problem is equivalent to simple function that takes two string slices and returns the longer one. You must write the signature of such function as fn longer<'a>(&'a str, &'a str) -> &'a str, or the compiler will give you the same error.
Considering the following code:
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a> {
Box::new(move || &t)
}
What I expect:
The type T has lifetime 'a.
The value t live as long as T.
t moves to the closure, so the closure live as long as t
The closure returns a reference to t which was moved to the closure. So the reference is valid as long as the closure exists.
There is no lifetime problem, the code compiles.
What actually happens:
The code does not compile:
error[E0495]: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime for borrow expression due to conflicting requirements
--> src/lib.rs:2:22
|
2 | Box::new(move || &t)
| ^^
|
note: first, the lifetime cannot outlive the lifetime as defined on the body at 2:14...
--> src/lib.rs:2:14
|
2 | Box::new(move || &t)
| ^^^^^^^^^^
note: ...so that closure can access `t`
--> src/lib.rs:2:22
|
2 | Box::new(move || &t)
| ^^
note: but, the lifetime must be valid for the lifetime 'a as defined on the function body at 1:8...
--> src/lib.rs:1:8
|
1 | fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a> {
| ^^
= note: ...so that the expression is assignable:
expected std::boxed::Box<(dyn std::ops::Fn() -> &'a T + 'a)>
found std::boxed::Box<dyn std::ops::Fn() -> &T>
I do not understand the conflict. How can I fix it?
Very interesting question! I think I understood the problem(s) at play here. Let me try to explain.
tl;dr: closures cannot return references to values captured by moving, because that would be a reference to self. Such a reference cannot be returned because the Fn* traits don't allow us to express that. This is basically the same as the streaming iterator problem and could be fixed via GATs (generic associated types).
Implementing it manually
As you probably know, when you write a closure, the compiler will generate a struct and impl blocks for the appropriate Fn traits, so closures are basically syntax sugar. Let's try to avoid all that sugar and build your type manually.
What you want is a type which owns another type and can return references to that owned type. And you want to have a function which returns a boxed instance of said type.
struct Baz<T>(T);
impl<T> Baz<T> {
fn call(&self) -> &T {
&self.0
}
}
fn make_baz<T>(t: T) -> Box<Baz<T>> {
Box::new(Baz(t))
}
This is pretty equivalent to your boxed closure. Let's try to use it:
let outside = {
let s = "hi".to_string();
let baz = make_baz(s);
println!("{}", baz.call()); // works
baz
};
println!("{}", outside.call()); // works too
This works just fine. The string s is moved into the Baz type and that Baz instance is moved into the Box. s is now owned by baz and then by outside.
It gets more interesting when we add a single character:
let outside = {
let s = "hi".to_string();
let baz = make_baz(&s); // <-- NOW BORROWED!
println!("{}", baz.call()); // works
baz
};
println!("{}", outside.call()); // doesn't work!
Now we cannot make the lifetime of baz bigger than the lifetime of s, since baz contains a reference to s which would be an dangling reference of s would go out of scope earlier than baz.
The point I wanted to make with this snippet: we didn't need to annotate any lifetimes on the type Baz to make this safe; Rust figured it out on its own and enforces that baz lives no longer than s. This will be important below.
Writing a trait for it
So far we only covered the basics. Let's try to write a trait like Fn to get closer to your original problem:
trait MyFn {
type Output;
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output;
}
In our trait, there are no function parameters, but otherwise it's fairly identical to the real Fn trait.
Let's implement it!
impl<T> MyFn for Baz<T> {
type Output = ???;
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output {
&self.0
}
}
Now we have a problem: what do we write instead of ???? Naively one would write &T... but we need a lifetime parameter for that reference. Where do we get one? What lifetime does the return value even have?
Let's check the function we implemented before:
impl<T> Baz<T> {
fn call(&self) -> &T {
&self.0
}
}
So here we use &T without lifetime parameter too. But this only works because of lifetime elision. Basically, the compiler fills in the blanks so that fn call(&self) -> &T is equivalent to:
fn call<'s>(&'s self) -> &'s T
Aha, so the lifetime of the returned reference is bound to the self lifetime! (more experienced Rust users might already have a feeling where this is going...).
(As a side note: why is the returned reference not dependent on the lifetime of T itself? If T references something non-'static then this has to be accounted for, right? Yes, but it is already accounted for! Remember that no instance of Baz<T> can ever live longer than the thing T might reference. So the self lifetime is already shorter than whatever lifetime T might have. Thus we only need to concentrate on the self lifetime)
But how do we express that in the trait impl? Turns out: we can't (yet). This problem is regularly mentioned in the context of streaming iterators -- that is, iterators that return an item with a lifetime bound to the self lifetime. In today's Rust, it is sadly impossible to implement this; the type system is not strong enough.
What about the future?
Luckily, there is an RFC "Generic Associated Types" which was merged some time ago. This RFC extends the Rust type system to allow associated types of traits to be generic (over other types and lifetimes).
Let's see how we can make your example (kinda) work with GATs (according to the RFC; this stuff doesn't work yet ☹). First we have to change the trait definition:
trait MyFn {
type Output<'a>; // <-- we added <'a> to make it generic
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output;
}
The function signature hasn't changed in the code, but notice that lifetime elision kicks in! The above fn call(&self) -> Self::Output is equivalent to:
fn call<'s>(&'s self) -> Self::Output<'s>
So the lifetime of the associated type is bound to the self lifetime. Just as we wanted! The impl looks like this:
impl<T> MyFn for Baz<T> {
type Output<'a> = &'a T;
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output {
&self.0
}
}
To return a boxed MyFn we would need to write this (according to this section of the RFC:
fn make_baz<T>(t: T) -> Box<for<'a> MyFn<Output<'a> = &'a T>> {
Box::new(Baz(t))
}
And what if we want to use the real Fn trait? As far as I understand, we can't, even with GATs. I think it's impossible to change the existing Fn trait to use GATs in a backwards compatible manner. So it's likely that the standard library will keep the less powerful trait as is. (side note: how to evolve the standard library in backwards incompatible ways to use new language features is something I wondered about a few times already; so far I haven't heard of any real plan in this regards; I hope the Rust team comes up with something...)
Summary
What you want is not technically impossible or unsafe (we implemented it as a simple struct and it works). However, unfortunately it is impossible to express what you want in the form of closures/Fn traits in Rust's type system right now. This is the same problem streaming iterators are dealing with.
With the planned GAT feature, it is possible to express all of this in the type system. However, the standard library would need to catch up somehow to make your exact code possible.
What I expect:
The type T has lifetime 'a.
The value t live as long as T.
This makes no sense. A value cannot "live as long" as a type, because a type doesn't live. "T has lifetime 'a" is a very imprecise statement, easy to misunderstand. What T: 'a really means is "instances of T must stay valid at least as long as lifetime 'a. For example, T must not be a reference with a lifetime shorter than 'a, or a struct containing such a reference. Note that this has nothing to do with forming references to T, i.e. &T.
The value t, then, lives as long as its lexical scope (it's a function parameter) says it does, which has nothing to do with 'a at all.
t moves to the closure, so the closure live as long as t
This is also incorrect. The closure lives as long as the closure does lexically. It is a temporary in the result expression, and therefore lives until the end of the result expression. t's lifetime concerns the closure not at all, since it has its own T variable inside, the capture of t. Since the capture is a copy/move of t, it is not in any way affected by t's lifetime.
The temporary closure is then moved into the box's storage, but that's a new object with its own lifetime. The lifetime of that closure is bound to the lifetime of the box, i.e. it is the return value of the function, and later (if you store the box outside the function) the lifetime of whatever variable you store the box in.
All of that means that a closure that returns a reference to its own capture state must bind the lifetime of that reference to its own reference. Unfortunately, this is not possible.
Here's why:
The Fn trait implies the FnMut trait, which in turn implies the FnOnce trait. That is, every function object in Rust can be called with a by-value self argument. This means that every function object must be still valid being called with a by-value self argument and returning the same thing as always.
In other words, trying to write a closure that returns a reference to its own captures expands to roughly this code:
struct Closure<T> {
captured: T,
}
impl<T> FnOnce<()> for Closure<T> {
type Output = &'??? T; // what do I put as lifetime here?
fn call_once(self, _: ()) -> Self::Output {
&self.captured // returning reference to local variable
// no matter what, the reference would be invalid once we return
}
}
And this is why what you're trying to do is fundamentally impossible. Take a step back, think of what you're actually trying to accomplish with this closure, and find some other way to accomplish it.
You expect the type T to have lifetime 'a, but t is not a reference to a value of type T. The function takes ownership of the variable t by argument passing:
// t is moved here, t lifetime is the scope of the function
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T)
You should do:
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: &'a T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a> {
Box::new(move || t)
}
The other answers are top-notch, but I wanted to chime in with another reason your original code couldn't work. A big problem lies in the signature:
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a>
This says that the caller may specify any lifetime when calling foo and the code will be valid and memory-safe. That cannot possibly be true for this code. It wouldn't make sense to call this with 'a set to 'static, but nothing about this signature would prevent that.
Considering the following code:
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a> {
Box::new(move || &t)
}
What I expect:
The type T has lifetime 'a.
The value t live as long as T.
t moves to the closure, so the closure live as long as t
The closure returns a reference to t which was moved to the closure. So the reference is valid as long as the closure exists.
There is no lifetime problem, the code compiles.
What actually happens:
The code does not compile:
error[E0495]: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime for borrow expression due to conflicting requirements
--> src/lib.rs:2:22
|
2 | Box::new(move || &t)
| ^^
|
note: first, the lifetime cannot outlive the lifetime as defined on the body at 2:14...
--> src/lib.rs:2:14
|
2 | Box::new(move || &t)
| ^^^^^^^^^^
note: ...so that closure can access `t`
--> src/lib.rs:2:22
|
2 | Box::new(move || &t)
| ^^
note: but, the lifetime must be valid for the lifetime 'a as defined on the function body at 1:8...
--> src/lib.rs:1:8
|
1 | fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a> {
| ^^
= note: ...so that the expression is assignable:
expected std::boxed::Box<(dyn std::ops::Fn() -> &'a T + 'a)>
found std::boxed::Box<dyn std::ops::Fn() -> &T>
I do not understand the conflict. How can I fix it?
Very interesting question! I think I understood the problem(s) at play here. Let me try to explain.
tl;dr: closures cannot return references to values captured by moving, because that would be a reference to self. Such a reference cannot be returned because the Fn* traits don't allow us to express that. This is basically the same as the streaming iterator problem and could be fixed via GATs (generic associated types).
Implementing it manually
As you probably know, when you write a closure, the compiler will generate a struct and impl blocks for the appropriate Fn traits, so closures are basically syntax sugar. Let's try to avoid all that sugar and build your type manually.
What you want is a type which owns another type and can return references to that owned type. And you want to have a function which returns a boxed instance of said type.
struct Baz<T>(T);
impl<T> Baz<T> {
fn call(&self) -> &T {
&self.0
}
}
fn make_baz<T>(t: T) -> Box<Baz<T>> {
Box::new(Baz(t))
}
This is pretty equivalent to your boxed closure. Let's try to use it:
let outside = {
let s = "hi".to_string();
let baz = make_baz(s);
println!("{}", baz.call()); // works
baz
};
println!("{}", outside.call()); // works too
This works just fine. The string s is moved into the Baz type and that Baz instance is moved into the Box. s is now owned by baz and then by outside.
It gets more interesting when we add a single character:
let outside = {
let s = "hi".to_string();
let baz = make_baz(&s); // <-- NOW BORROWED!
println!("{}", baz.call()); // works
baz
};
println!("{}", outside.call()); // doesn't work!
Now we cannot make the lifetime of baz bigger than the lifetime of s, since baz contains a reference to s which would be an dangling reference of s would go out of scope earlier than baz.
The point I wanted to make with this snippet: we didn't need to annotate any lifetimes on the type Baz to make this safe; Rust figured it out on its own and enforces that baz lives no longer than s. This will be important below.
Writing a trait for it
So far we only covered the basics. Let's try to write a trait like Fn to get closer to your original problem:
trait MyFn {
type Output;
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output;
}
In our trait, there are no function parameters, but otherwise it's fairly identical to the real Fn trait.
Let's implement it!
impl<T> MyFn for Baz<T> {
type Output = ???;
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output {
&self.0
}
}
Now we have a problem: what do we write instead of ???? Naively one would write &T... but we need a lifetime parameter for that reference. Where do we get one? What lifetime does the return value even have?
Let's check the function we implemented before:
impl<T> Baz<T> {
fn call(&self) -> &T {
&self.0
}
}
So here we use &T without lifetime parameter too. But this only works because of lifetime elision. Basically, the compiler fills in the blanks so that fn call(&self) -> &T is equivalent to:
fn call<'s>(&'s self) -> &'s T
Aha, so the lifetime of the returned reference is bound to the self lifetime! (more experienced Rust users might already have a feeling where this is going...).
(As a side note: why is the returned reference not dependent on the lifetime of T itself? If T references something non-'static then this has to be accounted for, right? Yes, but it is already accounted for! Remember that no instance of Baz<T> can ever live longer than the thing T might reference. So the self lifetime is already shorter than whatever lifetime T might have. Thus we only need to concentrate on the self lifetime)
But how do we express that in the trait impl? Turns out: we can't (yet). This problem is regularly mentioned in the context of streaming iterators -- that is, iterators that return an item with a lifetime bound to the self lifetime. In today's Rust, it is sadly impossible to implement this; the type system is not strong enough.
What about the future?
Luckily, there is an RFC "Generic Associated Types" which was merged some time ago. This RFC extends the Rust type system to allow associated types of traits to be generic (over other types and lifetimes).
Let's see how we can make your example (kinda) work with GATs (according to the RFC; this stuff doesn't work yet ☹). First we have to change the trait definition:
trait MyFn {
type Output<'a>; // <-- we added <'a> to make it generic
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output;
}
The function signature hasn't changed in the code, but notice that lifetime elision kicks in! The above fn call(&self) -> Self::Output is equivalent to:
fn call<'s>(&'s self) -> Self::Output<'s>
So the lifetime of the associated type is bound to the self lifetime. Just as we wanted! The impl looks like this:
impl<T> MyFn for Baz<T> {
type Output<'a> = &'a T;
fn call(&self) -> Self::Output {
&self.0
}
}
To return a boxed MyFn we would need to write this (according to this section of the RFC:
fn make_baz<T>(t: T) -> Box<for<'a> MyFn<Output<'a> = &'a T>> {
Box::new(Baz(t))
}
And what if we want to use the real Fn trait? As far as I understand, we can't, even with GATs. I think it's impossible to change the existing Fn trait to use GATs in a backwards compatible manner. So it's likely that the standard library will keep the less powerful trait as is. (side note: how to evolve the standard library in backwards incompatible ways to use new language features is something I wondered about a few times already; so far I haven't heard of any real plan in this regards; I hope the Rust team comes up with something...)
Summary
What you want is not technically impossible or unsafe (we implemented it as a simple struct and it works). However, unfortunately it is impossible to express what you want in the form of closures/Fn traits in Rust's type system right now. This is the same problem streaming iterators are dealing with.
With the planned GAT feature, it is possible to express all of this in the type system. However, the standard library would need to catch up somehow to make your exact code possible.
What I expect:
The type T has lifetime 'a.
The value t live as long as T.
This makes no sense. A value cannot "live as long" as a type, because a type doesn't live. "T has lifetime 'a" is a very imprecise statement, easy to misunderstand. What T: 'a really means is "instances of T must stay valid at least as long as lifetime 'a. For example, T must not be a reference with a lifetime shorter than 'a, or a struct containing such a reference. Note that this has nothing to do with forming references to T, i.e. &T.
The value t, then, lives as long as its lexical scope (it's a function parameter) says it does, which has nothing to do with 'a at all.
t moves to the closure, so the closure live as long as t
This is also incorrect. The closure lives as long as the closure does lexically. It is a temporary in the result expression, and therefore lives until the end of the result expression. t's lifetime concerns the closure not at all, since it has its own T variable inside, the capture of t. Since the capture is a copy/move of t, it is not in any way affected by t's lifetime.
The temporary closure is then moved into the box's storage, but that's a new object with its own lifetime. The lifetime of that closure is bound to the lifetime of the box, i.e. it is the return value of the function, and later (if you store the box outside the function) the lifetime of whatever variable you store the box in.
All of that means that a closure that returns a reference to its own capture state must bind the lifetime of that reference to its own reference. Unfortunately, this is not possible.
Here's why:
The Fn trait implies the FnMut trait, which in turn implies the FnOnce trait. That is, every function object in Rust can be called with a by-value self argument. This means that every function object must be still valid being called with a by-value self argument and returning the same thing as always.
In other words, trying to write a closure that returns a reference to its own captures expands to roughly this code:
struct Closure<T> {
captured: T,
}
impl<T> FnOnce<()> for Closure<T> {
type Output = &'??? T; // what do I put as lifetime here?
fn call_once(self, _: ()) -> Self::Output {
&self.captured // returning reference to local variable
// no matter what, the reference would be invalid once we return
}
}
And this is why what you're trying to do is fundamentally impossible. Take a step back, think of what you're actually trying to accomplish with this closure, and find some other way to accomplish it.
You expect the type T to have lifetime 'a, but t is not a reference to a value of type T. The function takes ownership of the variable t by argument passing:
// t is moved here, t lifetime is the scope of the function
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T)
You should do:
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: &'a T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a> {
Box::new(move || t)
}
The other answers are top-notch, but I wanted to chime in with another reason your original code couldn't work. A big problem lies in the signature:
fn foo<'a, T: 'a>(t: T) -> Box<Fn() -> &'a T + 'a>
This says that the caller may specify any lifetime when calling foo and the code will be valid and memory-safe. That cannot possibly be true for this code. It wouldn't make sense to call this with 'a set to 'static, but nothing about this signature would prevent that.
First of all, I'm not asking what's the difference between &mut and ref mut per se.
I'm asking because I thought:
let ref mut a = MyStruct
is the same as
let a = &mut MyStruct
Consider returning a trait object from a function. You can return a Box<Trait> or a &Trait. If you want to have mutable access to its methods, is it possible to return &mut Trait?
Given this example:
trait Hello {
fn hello(&mut self);
}
struct English;
struct Spanish;
impl Hello for English {
fn hello(&mut self) {
println!("Hello!");
}
}
impl Hello for Spanish {
fn hello(&mut self) {
println!("Hola!");
}
}
The method receives a mutable reference for demonstration purposes.
This won't compile:
fn make_hello<'a>() -> &'a mut Hello {
&mut English
}
nor this:
fn make_hello<'a>() -> &'a mut Hello {
let b = &mut English;
b
}
But this will compile and work:
fn make_hello<'a>() -> &'a mut Hello {
let ref mut b = English;
b
}
My theory
This example will work out of the box with immutable references (not necessary to assign it to a variable, just return &English) but not with mutable references. I think this is due to the rule that there can be only one mutable reference or as many immutable as you want.
In the case of immutable references, you are creating an object and borrowing it as a return expression; its reference won't die because it's being borrowed.
In the case of mutable references, if you try to create an object and borrow it mutably as a return expression you have two mutable references (the created object and its mutable reference). Since you cannot have two mutable references to the same object it won't perform the second, hence the variable won't live long enough. I think that when you write let mut ref b = English and return b you are moving the mutable reference because it was captured by a pattern.
All of the above is a poor attempt to explain to myself why it works, but I don't have the fundamentals to prove it.
Why does this happen?
I've also cross-posted this question to Reddit.
This is a bug. My original analysis below completely ignored the fact that it was returning a mutable reference. The bits about promotion only make sense in the context of immutable values.
This is allowable due to a nuance of the rules governing temporaries (emphasis mine):
When using an rvalue in most lvalue contexts, a temporary unnamed lvalue is created and used instead, if not promoted to 'static.
The reference continues:
Promotion of an rvalue expression to a 'static slot occurs when the expression could be written in a constant, borrowed, and dereferencing that borrow where the expression was the originally written, without changing the runtime behavior. That is, the promoted expression can be evaluated at compile-time and the resulting value does not contain interior mutability or destructors (these properties are determined based on the value where possible, e.g. &None always has the type &'static Option<_>, as it contains nothing disallowed).
Your third case can be rewritten as this to "prove" that the 'static promotion is occurring:
fn make_hello_3<'a>() -> &'a mut Hello {
let ref mut b = English;
let c: &'static mut Hello = b;
c
}
As for why ref mut allows this and &mut doesn't, my best guess is that the 'static promotion is on a best-effort basis and &mut just isn't caught by whatever checks are present. You could probably look for or file an issue describing the situation.
This code fails the dreaded borrow checker (playground):
struct Data {
a: i32,
b: i32,
c: i32,
}
impl Data {
fn reference_to_a(&mut self) -> &i32 {
self.c = 1;
&self.a
}
fn get_b(&self) -> i32 {
self.b
}
}
fn main() {
let mut dat = Data{ a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 };
let aref = dat.reference_to_a();
println!("{}", dat.get_b());
}
Since non-lexical lifetimes were implemented, this is required to trigger the error:
fn main() {
let mut dat = Data { a: 1, b: 2, c: 3 };
let aref = dat.reference_to_a();
let b = dat.get_b();
println!("{:?}, {}", aref, b);
}
Error:
error[E0502]: cannot borrow `dat` as immutable because it is also borrowed as mutable
--> <anon>:19:20
|
18 | let aref = dat.reference_to_a();
| --- mutable borrow occurs here
19 | println!("{}", dat.get_b());
| ^^^ immutable borrow occurs here
20 | }
| - mutable borrow ends here
Why is this? I would have thought that the mutable borrow of dat is converted into an immutable one when reference_to_a() returns, because that function only returns an immutable reference. Is the borrow checker just not clever enough yet? Is this planned? Is there a way around it?
Lifetimes are separate from whether a reference is mutable or not. Working through the code:
fn reference_to_a(&mut self) -> &i32
Although the lifetimes have been elided, this is equivalent to:
fn reference_to_a<'a>(&'a mut self) -> &'a i32
i.e. the input and output lifetimes are the same. That's the only way to assign lifetimes to a function like this (unless it returned an &'static reference to global data), since you can't make up the output lifetime from nothing.
That means that if you keep the return value alive by saving it in a variable, you're keeping the &mut self alive too.
Another way of thinking about it is that the &i32 is a sub-borrow of &mut self, so is only valid until that expires.
As #aSpex points out, this is covered in the nomicon.
Why is this an error: While a more precise explanation was already given by #Chris some 2.5 years ago, you can read fn reference_to_a(&mut self) -> &i32 as a declaration that:
“I want to exclusively borrow self, then return a shared/immutable reference which lives as long as the original exclusive borrow” (source)
Apparently it can even prevent me from shooting myself in the foot.
Is the borrow checker just not clever enough yet? Is this planned?
There's still no way to express "I want to exclusively borrow self for the duration of the call, and return a shared reference with a separate lifetime". It is mentioned in the nomicon as #aSpex pointed out, and is listed among the Things Rust doesn’t let you do as of late 2018.
I couldn't find specific plans to tackle this, as previously other borrow checker improvements were deemed higher priority. The idea about allowing separate read/write "lifetime roles" (Ref2<'r, 'w>) was mentioned in the NLL RFC, but no-one has made it into an RFC of its own, as far as I can see.
Is there a way around it? Not really, but depending on the reason you needed this in the first place, other ways of structuring the code may be appropriate:
You can return a copy/clone instead of the reference
Sometimes you can split a fn(&mut self) -> &T into two, one taking &mut self and another returning &T, as suggested by #Chris here
As is often the case in Rust, rearranging your structs to be "data-oriented" rather than "object-oriented" can help
You can return a shared reference from the method: fn(&mut self) -> (&Self, &T) (from this answer)
You can make the fn take a shared &self reference and use interior mutability (i.e. define the parts of Self that need to be mutated as Cell<T> or RefCell<T>). This may feel like cheating, but it's actually appropriate, e.g. when the reason you need mutability as an implementation detail of a logically-immutable method. After all we're making a method take a &mut self not because it mutates parts of self, but to make it known to the caller so that it's possible to reason about which values can change in a complex program.