From 6a1e87efaf3398aa56c8a52891b7edbb32c5d301 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Nicola 'tekNico' Larosa Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2018 19:27:48 +0100 Subject: [PATCH] part06.rs lines shortened --- src/part06.rs | 145 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------------------- 1 file changed, 81 insertions(+), 64 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/part06.rs b/src/part06.rs index 7113094..04601ba 100644 --- a/src/part06.rs +++ b/src/part06.rs @@ -8,9 +8,10 @@ use part05::BigInt; // that computes the minimum of a list of `BigInt`. First, we have to write `min` for `BigInt`. impl BigInt { fn min_try1(self, other: Self) -> Self { - //@ Just to be sure, we first check that both operands actually satisfy our invariant. `debug_assert!` is a - //@ macro that checks that its argument (must be of type `bool`) is `true`, and panics otherwise. It gets - //@ removed in release builds, which you do with `cargo build --release`. + //@ Just to be sure, we first check that both operands actually satisfy our invariant. + //@ `debug_assert!` is a macro that checks that its argument (must be of type `bool`) is + //@ `true`, and panics otherwise. It gets removed in release builds, which you do with + //@ `cargo build --release`. debug_assert!(self.test_invariant() && other.test_invariant()); // Now our assumption of having no trailing zeros comes in handy: // If the lengths of the two numbers differ, we already know which is larger. @@ -28,7 +29,8 @@ impl BigInt { // Now we can write `vec_min`. fn vec_min(v: &Vec) -> Option { let mut min: Option = None; - // If `v` is a shared reference to a vector, then the default for iterating over it is to call `iter`, the iterator that borrows the elements. + // If `v` is a shared reference to a vector, then the default for iterating over it is to call + // `iter`, the iterator that borrows the elements. for e in v { let e = e.clone(); min = Some(match min { /*@*/ @@ -38,8 +40,8 @@ fn vec_min(v: &Vec) -> Option { } min } -//@ Now, what's happening here? Why do we have to to make a full (deep) copy of `e`, and why did we not -//@ have to do that in our previous version? +//@ Now, what's happening here? Why do we have to to make a full (deep) copy of `e`, and why did we +//@ not have to do that in our previous version? //@ //@ The answer is already hidden in the type of `vec_min`: `v` is just borrowed, but //@ the Option that it returns is *owned*. We can't just return one of the elements of `v`, @@ -50,26 +52,28 @@ fn vec_min(v: &Vec) -> Option { //@ underlying data is transferred from `e` to `min`. But that's not allowed, since //@ we just borrowed `e`, so we cannot empty it! We can, however, call `clone` on it. Then we own //@ the copy that was created, and hence we can store it in `min`.
-//@ Of course, making such a full copy is expensive, so we'd like to avoid it. We'll come to that in the next part. +//@ Of course, making such a full copy is expensive, so we'd like to avoid it. We'll come to that +//@ in the next part. // ## `Copy` types -//@ But before we go there, I should answer the second question I brought up above: Why did our old `vec_min` work? -//@ We stored the minimal `i32` locally without cloning, and Rust did not complain. That's because there isn't -//@ really much of an "ownership" when it comes to types like `i32` or `bool`: If you move the value from one -//@ place to another, then both instances are "complete". We also say the value has been *duplicated*. This is in -//@ stark contrast to types like `Vec`, where moving the value results in both the old and the new vector to -//@ point to the same underlying buffer. We don't have two vectors, there's no proper duplication. -//@ -//@ Rust calls types that can be easily duplicated `Copy` types. `Copy` is another trait, and it is implemented for -//@ types like `i32` and `bool`. Remember how we defined the trait `Minimum` by writing `trait Minimum : Copy { ...`? -//@ This tells Rust that every type that implements `Minimum` must also implement `Copy`, and that's why the compiler -//@ accepted our generic `vec_min` in part 02. `Copy` is the first *marker trait* that we encounter: It does not provide -//@ any methods, but makes a promise about the behavior of the type - in this case, being duplicable. -//@ If you try to implement `Copy` for `BigInt`, you will notice that Rust -//@ does not let you do that. A type can only be `Copy` if all its elements -//@ are `Copy`, and that's not the case for `BigInt`. However, we can make -//@ `SomethingOrNothing` copy if `T` is `Copy`. +//@ But before we go there, I should answer the second question I brought up above: Why did our old +//@ `vec_min` work? We stored the minimal `i32` locally without cloning, and Rust did not complain. +//@ That's because there isn't really much of an "ownership" when it comes to types like `i32` or +//@ `bool`: If you move the value from one place to another, then both instances are "complete". We +//@ also say the value has been *duplicated*. This is in stark contrast to types like `Vec`, +//@ where moving the value results in both the old and the new vector to point to the same +//@ underlying buffer. We don't have two vectors, there's no proper duplication. +//@ +//@ Rust calls types that can be easily duplicated `Copy` types. `Copy` is another trait, and it is +//@ implemented for types like `i32` and `bool`. Remember how we defined the trait `Minimum` by +//@ writing `trait Minimum : Copy { ...`? This tells Rust that every type that implements `Minimum` +//@ must also implement `Copy`, and that's why the compiler accepted our generic `vec_min` in part +//@ 02. `Copy` is the first *marker trait* that we encounter: It does not provide any methods, but +//@ makes a promise about the behavior of the type - in this case, being duplicable. +//@ If you try to implement `Copy` for `BigInt`, you will notice that Rust does not let you do +//@ that. A type can only be `Copy` if all its elements are `Copy`, and that's not the case for +//@ `BigInt`. However, we can make `SomethingOrNothing` copy if `T` is `Copy`. use part02::{SomethingOrNothing,Something,Nothing}; impl Copy for SomethingOrNothing {} //@ Again, Rust can generate implementations of `Copy` automatically. If @@ -78,27 +82,28 @@ impl Copy for SomethingOrNothing {} //@ ## An operational perspective //@ Instead of looking at what happens "at the surface" (i.e., visible in Rust), one can also explain -//@ ownership passing and how `Copy` and `Clone` fit in by looking at what happens on the machine.
+//@ ownership passing and how `Copy` and `Clone` fit in by looking at what happens on the machine. +//@
//@ When Rust code is executed, passing a value (like `i32` or `Vec`) to a function will always //@ result in a shallow copy being performed: Rust just copies the bytes representing that value, and //@ considers itself done. That's just like the default copy constructor in C++. Rust, however, will //@ consider this a destructive operation: After copying the bytes elsewhere, the original value must -//@ no longer be used. After all, the two could now share a pointer! If, however, you mark a type `Copy`, -//@ then Rust will *not* consider a move destructive, and just like in C++, the old and new value -//@ can happily coexist. Now, Rust does not allow you to overload the copy constructor. This means that -//@ passing a value around will always be a fast operation, no allocation or any other kind of heap access -//@ will happen. In the situations where you would write a copy constructor in C++ (and hence -//@ incur a hidden cost on every copy of this type), you'd have the type *not* implement `Copy`, but only -//@ `Clone`. This makes the cost explicit. +//@ no longer be used. After all, the two could now share a pointer! If, however, you mark a type +//@ `Copy`, then Rust will *not* consider a move destructive, and just like in C++, the old and new +//@ value can happily coexist. Now, Rust does not allow you to overload the copy constructor. This +//@ means that passing a value around will always be a fast operation, no allocation or any other +//@ kind of heap access will happen. In the situations where you would write a copy constructor in +//@ C++ (and hence incur a hidden cost on every copy of this type), you'd have the type *not* +//@ implement `Copy`, but only `Clone`. This makes the cost explicit. // ## Lifetimes -//@ To fix the performance problems of `vec_min`, we need to avoid using `clone`. We'd like -//@ the return value to not be owned (remember that this was the source of our need for cloning), but *borrowed*. -//@ In other words, we want to return a shared reference to the minimal element. - -//@ The function `head` demonstrates how that could work: It returns a reference to the first element of a vector if it is non-empty. -//@ The type of the function says that it will either return nothing, or it will return a borrowed `T`. -//@ We can then obtain a reference to the first element of `v` and use it to construct the return value. +//@ To fix the performance problems of `vec_min`, we need to avoid using `clone`. We'd like the +//@ return value to not be owned (remember that this was the source of our need for cloning), but +//@ *borrowed*. In other words, we want to return a shared reference to the minimal element. +//@ The function `head` demonstrates how that could work: It returns a reference to the first +//@ element of a vector if it is non-empty. The type of the function says that it will either +//@ return nothing, or it will return a borrowed `T`. We can then obtain a reference to the first +//@ element of `v` and use it to construct the return value. fn head(v: &Vec) -> Option<&T> { if v.len() > 0 { Some(&v[0]) /*@*/ @@ -106,8 +111,9 @@ fn head(v: &Vec) -> Option<&T> { None } } -// Technically, we are returning a pointer to the first element. But doesn't that mean that callers have to be -// careful? Imagine `head` would be a C++ function, and we would write the following code. +// Technically, we are returning a pointer to the first element. But doesn't that mean that callers +// have to be careful? Imagine `head` would be a C++ function, and we would write the following +// code. /* int foo(std::vector v) { int *first = head(v); @@ -115,37 +121,48 @@ fn head(v: &Vec) -> Option<&T> { return *first; } */ -//@ This is very much like our very first motivating example for ownership, at the beginning of part 04: -//@ `push_back` could reallocate the buffer, making `first` an invalid pointer. Again, we have aliasing (of `first` -//@ and `v`) and mutation. But this time, the bug is hidden behind the call to `head`. How does Rust solve this? If we translate -//@ the code above to Rust, it doesn't compile, so clearly we are good - but how and why? -//@ (Notice that have to explicitly assert using `unwrap` that `first` is not `None`, whereas the C++ code -//@ above would silently dereference a `NULL`-pointer. But that's another point.) +//@ This is very much like our very first motivating example for ownership, at the beginning of +//@ part 04: `push_back` could reallocate the buffer, making `first` an invalid pointer. Again, we +//@ have aliasing (of `first` and `v`) and mutation. But this time, the bug is hidden behind the +//@ call to `head`. How does Rust solve this? If we translate the code above to Rust, it doesn't +//@ compile, so clearly we are good - but how and why? +//@ (Notice that have to explicitly assert using //@ `unwrap` that `first` is not `None`, whereas +//@ the C++ code above would silently dereference a //@ `NULL`-pointer. But that's another point.) fn rust_foo(mut v: Vec) -> i32 { let first: Option<&i32> = head(&v); /* v.push(42); */ *first.unwrap() } -//@ To give the answer to this question, we have to talk about the *lifetime* of a reference. The point is, saying that -//@ you borrowed your friend a `Vec`, or a book, is not good enough, unless you also agree on *how long* -//@ your friend can borrow it. After all, you need to know when you can rely on owning your data (or book) again. +//@ To give the answer to this question, we have to talk about the *lifetime* of a reference. The +//@ point is, saying that you borrowed your friend a `Vec`, or a book, is not good enough, +//@ unless you also agree on *how long* your friend can borrow it. After all, you need to know when +//@ you can rely on owning your data (or book) again. //@ -//@ Every reference in Rust has an associated lifetime, written `&'a T` for a reference with lifetime `'a` to something of type `T`. The full -//@ type of `head` reads as follows: `fn<'a, T>(&'a Vec) -> Option<&'a T>`. Here, `'a` is a *lifetime variable*, which -//@ represents for how long the vector has been borrowed. The function type expresses that argument and return value have *the same lifetime*. +//@ Every reference in Rust has an associated lifetime, written `&'a T` for a reference with +//@ lifetime `'a` to something of type `T`. The full type of `head` reads as follows: `fn<'a, +//@ T>(&'a Vec) -> Option<&'a T>`. Here, `'a` is a *lifetime variable*, which represents for how +//@ long the vector has been borrowed. The function type expresses that argument and return value +//@ have *the same lifetime*. //@ -//@ When analyzing the code of `rust_foo`, Rust has to assign a lifetime to `first`. It will choose the scope -//@ where `first` is valid, which is the entire rest of the function. Because `head` ties the lifetime of its -//@ argument and return value together, this means that `&v` also has to borrow `v` for the entire duration of -//@ the function `rust_foo`. So when we try to create a unique reference to `v` for `push`, Rust complains that the two references (the one -//@ for `head`, and the one for `push`) overlap, so neither of them can be unique. Lucky us! Rust caught our mistake and made sure we don't crash the program. +//@ When analyzing the code of `rust_foo`, Rust has to assign a lifetime to `first`. It will choose +//@ the scope where `first` is valid, which is the entire rest of the function. Because `head` ties +//@ the lifetime of its argument and return value together, this means that `&v` also has to borrow +//@ `v` for the entire duration of the function `rust_foo`. So when we try to create a unique +//@ reference to `v` for `push`, Rust complains that the two references (the one for `head`, and +//@ the one for `push`) overlap, so neither of them can be unique. Lucky us! Rust caught our +//@ mistake and made sure we don't crash the program. //@ -//@ So, to sum this up: Lifetimes enable Rust to reason about *how long* a reference is valid, how long ownership has been borrowed. We can thus -//@ safely write functions like `head`, that return references into data they got as argument, and make sure they -//@ are used correctly, *while looking only at the function type*. At no point in our analysis of `rust_foo` did -//@ we have to look *into* `head`. That's, of course, crucial if we want to separate library code from application code. -//@ Most of the time, we don't have to explicitly add lifetimes to function types. This is thanks to *lifetime elision*, -//@ where Rust will automatically insert lifetimes we did not specify, following some [simple, well-documented rules](https://doc.rust-lang.org/stable/book/lifetimes.html#lifetime-elision). +//@ So, to sum this up: Lifetimes enable Rust to reason about *how long* a reference is valid, how +//@ long ownership has been borrowed. We can thus safely write functions like `head`, that return +//@ references into data they got as argument, and make sure they are used correctly, *while +//@ looking only at the function type*. At no point in our analysis of `rust_foo` did we have to +//@ look *into* `head`. That's, of course, crucial if we want to separate library code from +//@ application code. +//@ Most of the time, we don't have to explicitly add lifetimes to function types. This is thanks +//@ to *lifetime elision*, where Rust will automatically insert lifetimes we did not specify, +//@ following some simple, well-documented +//@ [rules](https://doc.rust- lang.org/stable/book/lifetimes.html#lifetime-elision). -//@ [index](main.html) | [previous](part05.html) | [raw source](workspace/src/part06.rs) | [next](part07.html) +//@ [index](main.html) | [previous](part05.html) | [raw source](workspace/src/part06.rs) | +//@ [next](part07.html) -- 2.30.2