为什么借用顺序在 Rust 中很重要?

本文介绍了为什么借用顺序在 Rust 中很重要?的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！ 问题描述 fn say_hello(s: &str) { println!("Hello {}", s); }

为什么这样做

fn main() { let mut name = String::from("Charlie"); let x = &mut name; say_hello(x); name.push_str(" Brown"); }

但这不是吗?

fn main() { let mut name = String::from("Charlie"); let x = &mut name; name.push_str(" Brown"); say_hello(x); }

我所做的只是切换了两个函数的顺序，但似乎 x 在这两种情况下都可变地借用了 name，而 push_str 也可变地借用了 name，那么为什么第一个示例编译?

all I did was switch the order of the two functions but it seems like x has mutably borrowed name and push_str has also mutably borrowed name in both situations, so why does the first example compile?

如果我去掉对 say_hello() 的调用，为什么即使仍然有两个可变借用，两者的顺序无关紧要?

If I take out the call to say_hello() why does the order of the two not matter even though there are still two mutable borrows?

这是相似的吗?

fn change_string(s: &mut String) { // s is mutably borrowed but isn't used yet println!("{}", s.is_empty()); // so the scopes don't overlap even though is_empty is making an immutable borrow? s.push_str(" Brown"); }

推荐答案

Rust 的借用规则之一是 可变引用是独占的.意思是，当 x 活着时，不能使用 name.

One of Rust's borrowing rules is that mutable references are exclusive. Meaning, while x is alive, name cannot be used.

那么，为什么即使 x 仍在作用域内，第一个示例仍能编译?因为 Rust 也有 non-词法生命周期 意味着 x 停止生活"；上次使用后.

So, why does the first example compile even if x is still in scope? Because Rust also has non-lexical lifetimes meaning x stops "living" after its last use.

fn main() { let mut name = String::from("Charlie"); let x = &mut name; say_hello(x); // "x"s lifetime ends here, releasing the exclusive borrow name.push_str(" Brown"); // "name" can be used again }