Is &[T] literally an alias of Slice in rust? - rust

Question

&[T] is confusing me.
I naively assumed that like &T, &[T] was a pointer, which is to say, a numeric pointer address.
However, I've seen some code like this, that I was rather surprised to see work fine (simplified for demonstration purposes; but you see code like this in many 'as_slice()' implementations):
extern crate core;
extern crate collections;
use self::collections::str::raw::from_utf8;
use self::core::raw::Slice;
use std::mem::transmute;
fn main() {
let val = "Hello World";
{
let value:&str;
{
let bytes = val.as_bytes();
let mut slice = Slice { data: &bytes[0] as *const u8, len: bytes.len() };
unsafe {
let array:&[u8] = transmute(slice);
value = from_utf8(array);
}
// slice.len = 0;
}
println!("{}", value);
}
}
So.
I initially thought that this was invalid code.
That is, the instance of Slice created inside the block scope is returned to outside the block scope (by transmute), and although the code runs, the println! is actually accessing data that is no longer valid through unsafe pointers. Bad!
...but that doesn't seem to be the case.
Consider commenting the line // slice.len = 0;
This code still runs fine (prints 'Hello World') when this happens.
So the line...
value = from_utf8(array);
If it was an invalid pointer to the 'slice' variable, the len at the println() statement would be 0, but it is not. So effectively a copy not just of a pointer value, but a full copy of the Slice structure.
Is that right?
Does that mean that in general its valid to return a &[T] as long as the actual inner data pointer is valid, regardless of the scope of the original &[T] that is being returned, because a &[T] assignment is a copy operation?
(This seems, to me, to be extremely counter intuitive... so perhaps I am misunderstanding; if I'm right, having two &[T] that point to the same data cannot be valid, because they won't sync lengths if you modify one...)

Answer 1

A slice &[T], as you have noticed, is "equivalent" to a structure std::raw::Slice. In fact, Slice is an internal representation of &[T] value, and yes, it is a pointer and a length of data behind that pointer. Sometimes such structure is called "fat pointer", that is, a pointer and an additional piece of information.
When you pass &[T] value around, you indeed are just copying its contents - the pointer and the length.
If it was an invalid pointer to the 'slice' variable, the len at the println() statement would be 0, but it is not. So effectively a copy not just of a pointer value, but a full copy of the Slice structure.
Is that right?
So, yes, exactly.
Does that mean that in general its valid to return a &[T] as long as the actual inner data pointer is valid, regardless of the scope of the original &[T] that is being returned, because a &[T] assignment is a copy operation?
And this is also true. That's the whole idea of borrowed references, including slices - borrowed references are statically checked to be used as long as their referent is alive. When DST finally lands, slices and regular references will be even more unified.
(This seems, to me, to be extremely counter intuitive... so perhaps I am misunderstanding; if I'm right, having two &[T] that point to the same data cannot be valid, because they won't sync lengths if you modify one...)
And this is actually an absolutely valid concern; it is one of the problems with aliasing. However, Rust is designed exactly to prevent such bugs. There are two things which render aliasing of slices valid.
First, slices can't change length; there are no methods defined on &[T] which would allow you changing its length in place. You can create a derived slice from a slice, but it will be a new object whatsoever.
But even if slices can't change length, if the data could be mutated through them, they still could bring disaster if aliased. For example, if values in slices are enum instances, mutating a value in such an aliased slice could make a pointer to internals of enum value contained in this slice invalid. So, second, Rust aliasable slices (&[T]) are immutable. You can't change values contained in them and you can't take mutable references into them.
These two features (and compiler checks for lifetimes) make aliasing of slices absolutely safe. However, sometimes you do need to modify the data in a slice. And then you need mutable slice, called &mut [T]. You can change your data through such slice; but these slices are not aliasable. You can't create two mutable slices into the same structure (an array, for example), so you can't do anything dangerous.
Note, however, that using transmute() to transform a slice into a Slice or vice versa is an unsafe operation. &[T] is guaranteed statically to be correct if you create it using right methods, like calling as_slice() on a Vec. However, creating it manually using Slice struct and then transmuting it into &[T] is error-prone and can easily segfault your program, for example, when you assign it more length than is actually allocated.