<!-- DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE.

This file is periodically generated from the content in the `/src/`
directory, so all fixes need to be made in `/src/`.
-->

[TOC]

# Understanding Ownership

Ownership is Rust’s most unique feature and has deep implications for the rest
of the language. It enables Rust to make memory safety guarantees without
needing a garbage collector, so it’s important to understand how ownership
works. In this chapter, we’ll talk about ownership as well as several related
features: borrowing, slices, and how Rust lays data out in memory.

## What Is Ownership?

*Ownership* is a set of rules that governs how a Rust program manages memory.
All programs have to manage the way they use a computer’s memory while running.
Some languages have garbage collection that regularly looks for no-longer used
memory as the program runs; in other languages, the programmer must explicitly
allocate and free the memory. Rust uses a third approach: memory is managed
through a system of ownership with a set of rules that the compiler checks. If
any of the rules are violated, the program won’t compile. None of the features
of ownership will slow down your program while it’s running.

<!--- Minor nit: garbage collection isn't constant, it happens at times specified
by the collection algorithm. Maybe "Some languages have garbage collection that
regularly looks for no-longer used memory as the program runs."
/JT --->
<!-- Took this suggestion! /Carol -->

Because ownership is a new concept for many programmers, it does take some time
to get used to. The good news is that the more experienced you become with Rust
and the rules of the ownership system, the easier you’ll find it to naturally
develop code that is safe and efficient. Keep at it!

When you understand ownership, you’ll have a solid foundation for understanding
the features that make Rust unique. In this chapter, you’ll learn ownership by
working through some examples that focus on a very common data structure:
strings.

> ### The Stack and the Heap
>
> Many programming languages don’t require you to think about the stack and the
> heap very often. But in a systems programming language like Rust, whether a
> value is on the stack or the heap affects how the language behaves and why
> you have to make certain decisions. Parts of ownership will be described in
> relation to the stack and the heap later in this chapter, so here is a brief
> explanation in preparation.
>
> Both the stack and the heap are parts of memory available to your code to use
> at runtime, but they are structured in different ways. The stack stores
> values in the order it gets them and removes the values in the opposite
> order. This is referred to as *last in, first out*. Think of a stack of
> plates: when you add more plates, you put them on top of the pile, and when
> you need a plate, you take one off the top. Adding or removing plates from
> the middle or bottom wouldn’t work as well! Adding data is called *pushing
> onto the stack*, and removing data is called *popping off the stack*. All
> data stored on the stack must have a known, fixed size. Data with an unknown
> size at compile time or a size that might change must be stored on the heap
> instead.
>
> The heap is less organized: when you put data on the heap, you request a
> certain amount of space. The memory allocator finds an empty spot in the heap
> that is big enough, marks it as being in use, and returns a *pointer*, which
> is the address of that location. This process is called *allocating on the
> heap* and is sometimes abbreviated as just *allocating* (pushing values onto
> the stack is not considered allocating). Because the pointer to the heap is a
> known, fixed size, you can store the pointer on the stack, but when you want
> the actual data, you must follow the pointer. Think of being seated at a
> restaurant. When you enter, you state the number of people in your group, and
> the staff finds an empty table that fits everyone and leads you there. If
> someone in your group comes late, they can ask where you’ve been seated to
> find you.
>
> Pushing to the stack is faster than allocating on the heap because the
> allocator never has to search for a place to store new data; that location is
> always at the top of the stack. Comparatively, allocating space on the heap
> requires more work, because the allocator must first find a big enough space
> to hold the data and then perform bookkeeping to prepare for the next
> allocation.

<!--- Minor nit: not sure if worth clarifying but thought I'd mention - performance
for heap allocation I think isn't as much the time spent in the allocator but that
you have to spend time asking the system for memory. Custom allocators still have to
do the allocation step but try to avoid the system step where possible.
/JT --->
<!-- I think this is a bit in the weeds, not making any change here /Carol -->

> Accessing data in the heap is slower than accessing data on the stack because
> you have to follow a pointer to get there. Contemporary processors are faster
> if they jump around less in memory. Continuing the analogy, consider a server
> at a restaurant taking orders from many tables. It’s most efficient to get
> all the orders at one table before moving on to the next table. Taking an
> order from table A, then an order from table B, then one from A again, and
> then one from B again would be a much slower process. By the same token, a
> processor can do its job better if it works on data that’s close to other
> data (as it is on the stack) rather than farther away (as it can be on the
> heap).

<!--- I don't quite understand the last sentence. If you allocate enough to create
virtual memory, sure. But modern systems you're probably safe for most things? Also,
if we're contrasting against something like the heap, just having the ability to allocate
large space is probably a big benefit of the heap rather than a drawback. IMHO I'd probably
just drop the last sentence.
/JT --->
<!-- Done! /Carol -->

>
> When your code calls a function, the values passed into the function
> (including, potentially, pointers to data on the heap) and the function’s
> local variables get pushed onto the stack. When the function is over, those
> values get popped off the stack.

<!--- Some calling conventions don't always use the stack for parameters.
For example, Windows x64 calling convention puts the first 4 arguments into
registers, and only puts args 5 and later on the stack. Ditto for the return
value. If it can fit in a register, x64 will use that instead of the stack:

https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/cpp/build/x64-calling-convention?view=msvc-170#parameter-passing
/JT --->
<!-- I think this is a bit in the weeds, not making any change here /Carol -->

>
> Keeping track of what parts of code are using what data on the heap,
> minimizing the amount of duplicate data on the heap, and cleaning up unused
> data on the heap so you don’t run out of space are all problems that ownership
> addresses. Once you understand ownership, you won’t need to think about the
> stack and the heap very often, but knowing that the main purpose of ownership
> is to manage heap data can help explain why it works the way it does.

### Ownership Rules

First, let’s take a look at the ownership rules. Keep these rules in mind as we
work through the examples that illustrate them:

* Each value in Rust has an *owner*.
* There can only be one owner at a time.
* When the owner goes out of scope, the value will be dropped.

<!--- Maybe splitting hairs, but for the first bullet I'd say:
"Each value in Rust has an *owner*".

If we say variables here, and then find out later that, for example, structs can
also be owners, this gets a bit mirky.
/JT --->
<!-- Took this suggestion! /Carol -->

### Variable Scope

Now that we’re past basic Rust syntax, we won’t include all the `fn main() {`
code in examples, so if you’re following along, make sure to put the following
examples inside a `main` function manually. As a result, our examples will be a
bit more concise, letting us focus on the actual details rather than
boilerplate code.

As a first example of ownership, we’ll look at the *scope* of some variables. A
scope is the range within a program for which an item is valid. Take the
following variable:

```
let s = "hello";
```

The variable `s` refers to a string literal, where the value of the string is
hardcoded into the text of our program. The variable is valid from the point at
which it’s declared until the end of the current *scope*. Listing 4-1 shows a
program with comments annotating where the variable `s` would be valid.

```
{                      // s is not valid here, it’s not yet declared
    let s = "hello";   // s is valid from this point forward.

    // do stuff with s
}                      // this scope is now over, and s is no longer valid
```

Listing 4-1: A variable and the scope in which it is valid

In other words, there are two important points in time here:

* When `s` comes *into scope*, it is valid.
* It remains valid until it goes *out of scope*.

At this point, the relationship between scopes and when variables are valid is
similar to that in other programming languages. Now we’ll build on top of this
understanding by introducing the `String` type.

### The `String` Type

To illustrate the rules of ownership, we need a data type that is more complex
than those we covered in the “Data Types” section of Chapter 3. The types
covered previously are all a known size, can be stored on the stack and popped
off the stack when their scope is over, and can be quickly and trivially copied
to make a new, independent instance if another part of code needs to use the
same value in a different scope. But we want to look at data that is stored on
the heap and explore how Rust knows when to clean up that data, and the
`String` type is a great example.

We’ll concentrate on the parts of `String` that relate to ownership. These
aspects also apply to other complex data types, whether they are provided by
the standard library or created by you. We’ll discuss `String` in more depth in
Chapter 8.

We’ve already seen string literals, where a string value is hardcoded into our
program. String literals are convenient, but they aren’t suitable for every
situation in which we may want to use text. One reason is that they’re
immutable. Another is that not every string value can be known when we write
our code: for example, what if we want to take user input and store it? For
these situations, Rust has a second string type, `String`. This type manages
data allocated on the heap and as such is able to store an amount of text that
is unknown to us at compile time. You can create a `String` from a string
literal using the `from` function, like so:

```
let s = String::from("hello");
```

The double colon `::` operator allows us to namespace this particular `from`
function under the `String` type rather than using some sort of name like
`string_from`. We’ll discuss this syntax more in the “Method Syntax” section of
Chapter 5 and when we talk about namespacing with modules in “Paths for
Referring to an Item in the Module Tree” in Chapter 7.

This kind of string *can* be mutated:

```
let mut s = String::from("hello");

s.push_str(", world!"); // push_str() appends a literal to a String

println!("{}", s); // This will print `hello, world!`
```

So, what’s the difference here? Why can `String` be mutated but literals
cannot? The difference is how these two types deal with memory.

### Memory and Allocation

In the case of a string literal, we know the contents at compile time, so the
text is hardcoded directly into the final executable. This is why string
literals are fast and efficient. But these properties only come from the string
literal’s immutability. Unfortunately, we can’t put a blob of memory into the
binary for each piece of text whose size is unknown at compile time and whose
size might change while running the program.

With the `String` type, in order to support a mutable, growable piece of text,
we need to allocate an amount of memory on the heap, unknown at compile time,
to hold the contents. This means:

* The memory must be requested from the memory allocator at runtime.
* We need a way of returning this memory to the allocator when we’re
  done with our `String`.

That first part is done by us: when we call `String::from`, its implementation
requests the memory it needs. This is pretty much universal in programming
languages.

However, the second part is different. In languages with a *garbage collector
(GC)*, the GC keeps track of and cleans up memory that isn’t being used
anymore, and we don’t need to think about it. In most languages without a GC,
it’s our responsibility to identify when memory is no longer being used and
call code to explicitly free it, just as we did to request it. Doing this
correctly has historically been a difficult programming problem. If we forget,
we’ll waste memory. If we do it too early, we’ll have an invalid variable. If
we do it twice, that’s a bug too. We need to pair exactly one `allocate` with
exactly one `free`.

<!--- The phrase "explicitly return it" gives a connotation in programming of
returning a value to a caller rather than the more casual returning it to the OS.
Maybe we can say "explicitly delete it" or "explicitly free it".
/JT --->
<!-- Changed "return" to "free" /Carol -->

Rust takes a different path: the memory is automatically returned once the
variable that owns it goes out of scope. Here’s a version of our scope example
from Listing 4-1 using a `String` instead of a string literal:

```
{
    let s = String::from("hello"); // s is valid from this point forward

    // do stuff with s
}                                  // this scope is now over, and s is no
                                   // longer valid
```

There is a natural point at which we can return the memory our `String` needs
to the allocator: when `s` goes out of scope. When a variable goes out of
scope, Rust calls a special function for us. This function is called `drop`,
and it’s where the author of `String` can put the code to return the memory.
Rust calls `drop` automatically at the closing curly bracket.

> Note: In C++, this pattern of deallocating resources at the end of an item’s
> lifetime is sometimes called *Resource Acquisition Is Initialization (RAII)*.
> The `drop` function in Rust will be familiar to you if you’ve used RAII
> patterns.

This pattern has a profound impact on the way Rust code is written. It may seem
simple right now, but the behavior of code can be unexpected in more
complicated situations when we want to have multiple variables use the data
we’ve allocated on the heap. Let’s explore some of those situations now.

#### Ways Variables and Data Interact: Move

Multiple variables can interact with the same data in different ways in Rust.
Let’s look at an example using an integer in Listing 4-2.

```
    let x = 5;
    let y = x;
```

Listing 4-2: Assigning the integer value of variable `x` to `y`

We can probably guess what this is doing: “bind the value `5` to `x`; then make
a copy of the value in `x` and bind it to `y`.” We now have two variables, `x`
and `y`, and both equal `5`. This is indeed what is happening, because integers
are simple values with a known, fixed size, and these two `5` values are pushed
onto the stack.

Now let’s look at the `String` version:

```
    let s1 = String::from("hello");
    let s2 = s1;
```

This looks very similar, so we might assume that the way it works would be the
same: that is, the second line would make a copy of the value in `s1` and bind
it to `s2`. But this isn’t quite what happens.

Take a look at Figure 4-1 to see what is happening to `String` under the
covers. A `String` is made up of three parts, shown on the left: a pointer to
the memory that holds the contents of the string, a length, and a capacity.
This group of data is stored on the stack. On the right is the memory on the
heap that holds the contents.

<img alt="String in memory" src="img/trpl04-01.svg" class="center" style="width: 50%;" />

<!--- This might be me being a bit nitpicky - when you show what the string looks like
in memory, we're showing indices for data pointed to by ptr. I have a bit of a knee-jerk
reaction here since we don't think of strings has having indices in Rust (because of UTF-8)
Not sure if it's well enough alone, or if it might be better for the ptr to point at
at cells of memory without giving them indices.

Something like:

[ptr      | --] -> [h][e][l][l][o]
[len      | 5]
[capacity | 5]
/JT --->
<!-- I think this is a bit in the weeds, not making any change here /Carol -->

Figure 4-1: Representation in memory of a `String` holding the value `"hello"`
bound to `s1`

The length is how much memory, in bytes, the contents of the `String` is
currently using. The capacity is the total amount of memory, in bytes, that the
`String` has received from the allocator. The difference between length
and capacity matters, but not in this context, so for now, it’s fine to ignore
the capacity.

When we assign `s1` to `s2`, the `String` data is copied, meaning we copy the
pointer, the length, and the capacity that are on the stack. We do not copy the
data on the heap that the pointer refers to. In other words, the data
representation in memory looks like Figure 4-2.

<img alt="s1 and s2 pointing to the same value" src="img/trpl04-02.svg" class="center" style="width: 50%;" />

Figure 4-2: Representation in memory of the variable `s2` that has a copy of
the pointer, length, and capacity of `s1`

The representation does *not* look like Figure 4-3, which is what memory would
look like if Rust instead copied the heap data as well. If Rust did this, the
operation `s2 = s1` could be very expensive in terms of runtime performance if
the data on the heap were large.

<img alt="s1 and s2 to two places" src="img/trpl04-03.svg" class="center" style="width: 50%;" />

Figure 4-3: Another possibility for what `s2 = s1` might do if Rust copied the
heap data as well

Earlier, we said that when a variable goes out of scope, Rust automatically
calls the `drop` function and cleans up the heap memory for that variable. But
Figure 4-2 shows both data pointers pointing to the same location. This is a
problem: when `s2` and `s1` go out of scope, they will both try to free the
same memory. This is known as a *double free* error and is one of the memory
safety bugs we mentioned previously. Freeing memory twice can lead to memory
corruption, which can potentially lead to security vulnerabilities.

To ensure memory safety, after the line `let s2 = s1`, Rust considers `s1` as
no longer valid. Therefore, Rust doesn’t need to free anything when `s1` goes
out of scope. Check out what happens when you try to use `s1` after `s2` is
created; it won’t work:

```
let s1 = String::from("hello");
let s2 = s1;

println!("{}, world!", s1);
```

You’ll get an error like this because Rust prevents you from using the
invalidated reference:

```
error[E0382]: borrow of moved value: `s1`
 --> src/main.rs:5:28
  |
2 |     let s1 = String::from("hello");
  |         -- move occurs because `s1` has type `String`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
3 |     let s2 = s1;
  |              -- value moved here
4 |
5 |     println!("{}, world!", s1);
  |                            ^^ value borrowed here after move
```

If you’ve heard the terms *shallow copy* and *deep copy* while working with
other languages, the concept of copying the pointer, length, and capacity
without copying the data probably sounds like making a shallow copy. But
because Rust also invalidates the first variable, instead of calling it a
shallow copy, it’s known as a *move*. In this example, we would say that
`s1` was *moved* into `s2`. So what actually happens is shown in Figure 4-4.

<img alt="s1 moved to s2" src="img/trpl04-04.svg" class="center" style="width: 50%;" />

Figure 4-4: Representation in memory after `s1` has been invalidated

That solves our problem! With only `s2` valid, when it goes out of scope, it
alone will free the memory, and we’re done.

In addition, there’s a design choice that’s implied by this: Rust will never
automatically create “deep” copies of your data. Therefore, any *automatic*
copying can be assumed to be inexpensive in terms of runtime performance.

#### Ways Variables and Data Interact: Clone

If we *do* want to deeply copy the heap data of the `String`, not just the
stack data, we can use a common method called `clone`. We’ll discuss method
syntax in Chapter 5, but because methods are a common feature in many
programming languages, you’ve probably seen them before.

Here’s an example of the `clone` method in action:

```
let s1 = String::from("hello");
let s2 = s1.clone();

println!("s1 = {}, s2 = {}", s1, s2);
```

This works just fine and explicitly produces the behavior shown in Figure 4-3,
where the heap data *does* get copied.

When you see a call to `clone`, you know that some arbitrary code is being
executed and that code may be expensive. It’s a visual indicator that something
different is going on.

#### Stack-Only Data: Copy

There’s another wrinkle we haven’t talked about yet. This code using integers –
part of which was shown in Listing 4-2 – works and is valid:

```
let x = 5;
let y = x;

println!("x = {}, y = {}", x, y);
```

But this code seems to contradict what we just learned: we don’t have a call to
`clone`, but `x` is still valid and wasn’t moved into `y`.

The reason is that types such as integers that have a known size at compile
time are stored entirely on the stack, so copies of the actual values are quick
to make. That means there’s no reason we would want to prevent `x` from being
valid after we create the variable `y`. In other words, there’s no difference
between deep and shallow copying here, so calling `clone` wouldn’t do anything
different from the usual shallow copying and we can leave it out.

Rust has a special annotation called the `Copy` trait that we can place on
types that are stored on the stack, as integers are (we’ll talk more about
traits in Chapter 10). If a type implements the `Copy` trait, variables that
use it do not move, but rather are trivially copied, making them still valid
after assignment to another variable.

<!--- an older variable that uses that type, we mean? /LC --->
<!-- I removed "older" here, I don't think that was quite right-- this sentence
is trying to describe the line `let y = x` where the variable `x` is assigned
to `y`. The variables must be the same type because they're getting the same
value, so "that uses that type" isn't relevant. Let me know if there's any
aspects that are still confusing here. /Carol -->
<!-- JT, is this all clear in the text? /LC -->
<!--- I think this is fine. When I teach it, I tend to stress *move* and *copy*
so that they can build up that framework. So my slight tweak to the above might
be:

"If a type implements the `Copy` trait, variables that use it do not move but rather are
trivially copied, making them still valid after assignment to another variable."
/JT --->
<!-- Took this suggestion! /Carol -->

Rust won’t let us annotate a type with `Copy` if the type, or any of its parts,
has implemented the `Drop` trait. If the type needs something special to happen
when the value goes out of scope and we add the `Copy` annotation to that type,
we’ll get a compile-time error. To learn about how to add the `Copy` annotation
to your type to implement the trait, see “Derivable Traits” in Appendix C.

So what types implement the `Copy` trait? You can check the documentation for
the given type to be sure, but as a general rule, any group of simple scalar
values can implement `Copy`, and nothing that requires allocation or is some
form of resource can implement `Copy`. Here are some of the types that
implement `Copy`:

* All the integer types, such as `u32`.
* The Boolean type, `bool`, with values `true` and `false`.
* All the floating point types, such as `f64`.
* The character type, `char`.
* Tuples, if they only contain types that also implement `Copy`. For example,
  `(i32, i32)` implements `Copy`, but `(i32, String)` does not.

### Ownership and Functions

The mechanics of passing a value to a function are similar to those when
assigning a value to a variable. Passing a variable to a function will move or
copy, just as assignment does. Listing 4-3 has an example with some annotations
showing where variables go into and out of scope.

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let s = String::from("hello");  // s comes into scope

    takes_ownership(s);             // s's value moves into the function...
                                    // ... and so is no longer valid here

    let x = 5;                      // x comes into scope

    makes_copy(x);                  // x would move into the function,
                                    // but i32 is Copy, so it's okay to still
                                    // use x afterward

} // Here, x goes out of scope, then s. But because s's value was moved, nothing
  // special happens.

fn takes_ownership(some_string: String) { // some_string comes into scope
    println!("{}", some_string);
} // Here, some_string goes out of scope and `drop` is called. The backing
  // memory is freed.

fn makes_copy(some_integer: i32) { // some_integer comes into scope
    println!("{}", some_integer);
} // Here, some_integer goes out of scope. Nothing special happens.
```

Listing 4-3: Functions with ownership and scope annotated

If we tried to use `s` after the call to `takes_ownership`, Rust would throw a
compile-time error. These static checks protect us from mistakes. Try adding
code to `main` that uses `s` and `x` to see where you can use them and where
the ownership rules prevent you from doing so.

### Return Values and Scope

Returning values can also transfer ownership. Listing 4-4 shows an example
of a function that returns some value, with similar annotations as those in
Listing 4-3.

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let s1 = gives_ownership();         // gives_ownership moves its return
                                        // value into s1

    let s2 = String::from("hello");     // s2 comes into scope

    let s3 = takes_and_gives_back(s2);  // s2 is moved into
                                        // takes_and_gives_back, which also
                                        // moves its return value into s3
} // Here, s3 goes out of scope and is dropped. s2 was moved, so nothing
  // happens. s1 goes out of scope and is dropped.

fn gives_ownership() -> String {             // gives_ownership will move its
                                             // return value into the function
                                             // that calls it

    let some_string = String::from("yours"); // some_string comes into scope

    some_string                              // some_string is returned and
                                             // moves out to the calling
                                             // function
}

// This function takes a String and returns one
fn takes_and_gives_back(a_string: String) -> String { // a_string comes into
                                                      // scope

    a_string  // a_string is returned and moves out to the calling function
}
```

Listing 4-4: Transferring ownership of return values

The ownership of a variable follows the same pattern every time: assigning a
value to another variable moves it. When a variable that includes data on the
heap goes out of scope, the value will be cleaned up by `drop` unless ownership
of the data has been moved to another variable.

While this works, taking ownership and then returning ownership with every
function is a bit tedious. What if we want to let a function use a value but
not take ownership? It’s quite annoying that anything we pass in also needs to
be passed back if we want to use it again, in addition to any data resulting
from the body of the function that we might want to return as well.

Rust does let us return multiple values using a tuple, as shown in Listing 4-5.

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let s1 = String::from("hello");

    let (s2, len) = calculate_length(s1);

    println!("The length of '{}' is {}.", s2, len);
}

fn calculate_length(s: String) -> (String, usize) {
    let length = s.len(); // len() returns the length of a String

    (s, length)
}
```

Listing 4-5: Returning ownership of parameters

But this is too much ceremony and a lot of work for a concept that should be
common. Luckily for us, Rust has a feature for using a value without
transferring ownership, called *references*.

## References and Borrowing

The issue with the tuple code in Listing 4-5 is that we have to return the
`String` to the calling function so we can still use the `String` after the
call to `calculate_length`, because the `String` was moved into
`calculate_length`. Instead, we can provide a reference to the `String` value.
A *reference* is like a pointer in that it’s an address we can follow to access
the data stored at that address; that data is owned by some other variable.
Unlike a pointer, a reference is guaranteed to point to a valid value of a
particular type for the life of that reference.

<!--- Possible wording tweak: "a reference is guaranteed to point to a valid value of a
particular type for the life of that reference" or "a reference is always guaranteed
to point to a valid value of a particular type"
/JT --->
<!-- Took this suggestion! /Carol -->

Here is how you would define and use a `calculate_length` function that has a
reference to an object as a parameter instead of taking ownership of the value:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let s1 = String::from("hello");

    let len = calculate_length(&s1);

    println!("The length of '{}' is {}.", s1, len);
}

fn calculate_length(s: &String) -> usize {
    s.len()
}
```

First, notice that all the tuple code in the variable declaration and the
function return value is gone. Second, note that we pass `&s1` into
`calculate_length` and, in its definition, we take `&String` rather than
`String`. These ampersands represent *references*, and they allow you to refer
to some value without taking ownership of it. Figure 4-5 depicts this concept.

<img alt="&String s pointing at String s1" src="img/trpl04-05.svg" class="center" />

Figure 4-5: A diagram of `&String s` pointing at `String s1`

> Note: The opposite of referencing by using `&` is *dereferencing*, which is
> accomplished with the dereference operator, `*`. We’ll see some uses of the
> dereference operator in Chapter 8 and discuss details of dereferencing in
> Chapter 15.

Let’s take a closer look at the function call here:

```
let s1 = String::from("hello");

let len = calculate_length(&s1);
```

The `&s1` syntax lets us create a reference that *refers* to the value of `s1`
but does not own it. Because it does not own it, the value it points to will
not be dropped when the reference stops being used.

Likewise, the signature of the function uses `&` to indicate that the type of
the parameter `s` is a reference. Let’s add some explanatory annotations:

```
fn calculate_length(s: &String) -> usize { // s is a reference to a String
    s.len()
} // Here, s goes out of scope. But because it does not have ownership of what
  // it refers to, it is not dropped.
```

The scope in which the variable `s` is valid is the same as any function
parameter’s scope, but the value pointed to by the reference is not dropped
when `s` stops being used because `s` doesn’t have ownership. When functions
have references as parameters instead of the actual values, we won’t need to
return the values in order to give back ownership, because we never had
ownership.

We call the action of creating a reference *borrowing*. As in real life, if a
person owns something, you can borrow it from them. When you’re done, you have
to give it back. You don’t own it.

So what happens if we try to modify something we’re borrowing? Try the code in
Listing 4-6. Spoiler alert: it doesn’t work!

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let s = String::from("hello");

    change(&s);
}

fn change(some_string: &String) {
    some_string.push_str(", world");
}
```

Listing 4-6: Attempting to modify a borrowed value

Here’s the error:

```
error[E0596]: cannot borrow `*some_string` as mutable, as it is behind a `&` reference
 --> src/main.rs:8:5
  |
7 | fn change(some_string: &String) {
  |                        ------- help: consider changing this to be a mutable reference: `&mut String`
8 |     some_string.push_str(", world");
  |     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ `some_string` is a `&` reference, so the data it refers to cannot be borrowed as mutable
```

Just as variables are immutable by default, so are references. We’re not
allowed to modify something we have a reference to.

### Mutable References

We can fix the code from Listing 4-6 to allow us to modify a borrowed value
with just a few small tweaks that use, instead, a *mutable reference*:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let mut s = String::from("hello");

    change(&mut s);
}

fn change(some_string: &mut String) {
    some_string.push_str(", world");
}
```

First, we change `s` to be `mut`. Then we create a mutable reference with `&mut
s` where we call the `change` function, and update the function signature to
accept a mutable reference with `some_string: &mut String`. This makes it very
clear that the `change` function will mutate the value it borrows.

Mutable references have one big restriction: if you have a mutable reference to
a value, you can have no other references to that value. This code that
attempts to create two mutable references to `s` will fail:

<!--- Clarification: "Mutable references have one big restriction: if you have a
mutable reference to a value, you can have no other references to that value."
This covers both not having two mutable references and having a mutable references
and an immutable reference to the same value.
/JT --->
<!-- Took this suggestion! /Carol -->

Filename: src/main.rs

```
    let mut s = String::from("hello");

    let r1 = &mut s;
    let r2 = &mut s;

    println!("{}, {}", r1, r2);
```

Here’s the error:

```
error[E0499]: cannot borrow `s` as mutable more than once at a time
 --> src/main.rs:5:14
  |
4 |     let r1 = &mut s;
  |              ------ first mutable borrow occurs here
5 |     let r2 = &mut s;
  |              ^^^^^^ second mutable borrow occurs here
6 |
7 |     println!("{}, {}", r1, r2);
  |                        -- first borrow later used here
```

This error says that this code is invalid because we cannot borrow `s` as
mutable more than once at a time. The first mutable borrow is in `r1` and must
last until it’s used in the `println!`, but between the creation of that
mutable reference and its usage, we tried to create another mutable reference
in `r2` that borrows the same data as `r1`.

The restriction preventing multiple mutable references to the same data at the
same time allows for mutation but in a very controlled fashion. It’s something
that new Rustaceans struggle with, because most languages let you mutate
whenever you’d like. The benefit of having this restriction is that Rust can
prevent data races at compile time. A *data race* is similar to a race
condition and happens when these three behaviors occur:

* Two or more pointers access the same data at the same time.
* At least one of the pointers is being used to write to the data.
* There’s no mechanism being used to synchronize access to the data.

Data races cause undefined behavior and can be difficult to diagnose and fix
when you’re trying to track them down at runtime; Rust prevents this problem
by refusing to compile code with data races!

As always, we can use curly brackets to create a new scope, allowing for
multiple mutable references, just not *simultaneous* ones:

```
let mut s = String::from("hello");

{
    let r1 = &mut s;
} // r1 goes out of scope here, so we can make a new reference with no problems.

let r2 = &mut s;
```

Rust enforces a similar rule for combining mutable and immutable references.
This code results in an error:

```
let mut s = String::from("hello");

let r1 = &s; // no problem
let r2 = &s; // no problem
let r3 = &mut s; // BIG PROBLEM

println!("{}, {}, and {}", r1, r2, r3);
```

Here’s the error:

```
error[E0502]: cannot borrow `s` as mutable because it is also borrowed as immutable
 --> src/main.rs:6:14
  |
4 |     let r1 = &s; // no problem
  |              -- immutable borrow occurs here
5 |     let r2 = &s; // no problem
6 |     let r3 = &mut s; // BIG PROBLEM
  |              ^^^^^^ mutable borrow occurs here
7 |
8 |     println!("{}, {}, and {}", r1, r2, r3);
  |                                -- immutable borrow later used here
```

Whew! We *also* cannot have a mutable reference while we have an immutable one
to the same value.

Users of an immutable reference don’t expect the value to suddenly change out
from under them! However, multiple immutable references are allowed because no
one who is just reading the data has the ability to affect anyone else’s
reading of the data.

Note that a reference’s scope starts from where it is introduced and continues
through the last time that reference is used. For instance, this code will
compile because the last usage of the immutable references, the `println!`,
occurs before the mutable reference is introduced:

```
let mut s = String::from("hello");

let r1 = &s; // no problem
let r2 = &s; // no problem
println!("{} and {}", r1, r2);
// variables r1 and r2 will not be used after this point

let r3 = &mut s; // no problem
println!("{}", r3);
```

The scopes of the immutable references `r1` and `r2` end after the `println!`
where they are last used, which is before the mutable reference `r3` is
created. These scopes don’t overlap, so this code is allowed. The ability of
the compiler to tell that a reference is no longer being used at a point before
the end of the scope is called *Non-Lexical Lifetimes* (NLL for short), and you
can read more about it in The Edition Guide at
*https://doc.rust-lang.org/edition-guide/rust-2018/ownership-and-lifetimes/non-lexical-lifetimes.html*.

Even though borrowing errors may be frustrating at times, remember that it’s
the Rust compiler pointing out a potential bug early (at compile time rather
than at runtime) and showing you exactly where the problem is. Then you don’t
have to track down why your data isn’t what you thought it was.

### Dangling References

In languages with pointers, it’s easy to erroneously create a *dangling
pointer*--a pointer that references a location in memory that may have been
given to someone else--by freeing some memory while preserving a pointer to
that memory. In Rust, by contrast, the compiler guarantees that references will
never be dangling references: if you have a reference to some data, the
compiler will ensure that the data will not go out of scope before the
reference to the data does.

Let’s try to create a dangling reference to see how Rust prevents them with a
compile-time error:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let reference_to_nothing = dangle();
}

fn dangle() -> &String {
    let s = String::from("hello");

    &s
}
```

Here’s the error:

```
error[E0106]: missing lifetime specifier
 --> src/main.rs:5:16
  |
5 | fn dangle() -> &String {
  |                ^ expected named lifetime parameter
  |
  = help: this function's return type contains a borrowed value, but there is no value for it to be borrowed from
help: consider using the `'static` lifetime
  |
5 | fn dangle() -> &'static String {
  |                ~~~~~~~~
```

This error message refers to a feature we haven’t covered yet: lifetimes. We’ll
discuss lifetimes in detail in Chapter 10. But, if you disregard the parts
about lifetimes, the message does contain the key to why this code is a problem:

```
this function's return type contains a borrowed value, but there is no value
for it to be borrowed from
```

Let’s take a closer look at exactly what’s happening at each stage of our
`dangle` code:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn dangle() -> &String { // dangle returns a reference to a String

    let s = String::from("hello"); // s is a new String

    &s // we return a reference to the String, s
} // Here, s goes out of scope, and is dropped. Its memory goes away.
  // Danger!
```

Because `s` is created inside `dangle`, when the code of `dangle` is finished,
`s` will be deallocated. But we tried to return a reference to it. That means
this reference would be pointing to an invalid `String`. That’s no good! Rust
won’t let us do this.

The solution here is to return the `String` directly:

```
fn no_dangle() -> String {
    let s = String::from("hello");

    s
}
```

This works without any problems. Ownership is moved out, and nothing is
deallocated.

### The Rules of References

Let’s recap what we’ve discussed about references:

* At any given time, you can have *either* one mutable reference *or* any
  number of immutable references.
* References must always be valid.

Next, we’ll look at a different kind of reference: slices.

## The Slice Type

*Slices* let you reference a contiguous sequence of elements in a collection
rather than the whole collection. A slice is a kind of reference, so it does
not have ownership.

Here’s a small programming problem: write a function that takes a string of
words separated by spaces and returns the first word it finds in that string.
If the function doesn’t find a space in the string, the whole string must be
one word, so the entire string should be returned.

<!--- Do we want to clarify this is for words separated by spaces?
Not all languages use spaces to separate words:
https://www.w3.org/International/articles/typography/linebreak.en#whatisword
/JT --->
<!-- Took this suggestion! /Carol -->

Let’s work through how we’d write the signature of this function without using
slices, to understand the problem that slices will solve:

```
fn first_word(s: &String) -> ?
```

The `first_word` function has a `&String` as a parameter. We don’t want
ownership, so this is fine. But what should we return? We don’t really have a
way to talk about *part* of a string. However, we could return the index of the
end of the word, indicated by a space. Let’s try that, as shown in Listing 4-7.

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn first_word(s: &String) -> usize {
  [1] let bytes = s.as_bytes();

    for (i, &item)[2] in bytes.iter()[3].enumerate() {
    [4]   if item == b' ' {
            return i;
        }
    }

  [5] s.len()
}
```

Listing 4-7: The `first_word` function that returns a byte index value into the
`String` parameter

Because we need to go through the `String` element by element and check whether
a value is a space, we’ll convert our `String` to an array of bytes using the
`as_bytes` method [1].

Next, we create an iterator over the array of bytes using the `iter` method [3].
We’ll discuss iterators in more detail in Chapter 13. For now, know that `iter`
is a method that returns each element in a collection and that `enumerate`
wraps the result of `iter` and returns each element as part of a tuple instead.
The first element of the tuple returned from `enumerate` is the index, and the
second element is a reference to the element. This is a bit more convenient
than calculating the index ourselves.

Because the `enumerate` method returns a tuple, we can use patterns to
destructure that tuple. We’ll be discussing patterns more in Chapter 6. In the
`for` loop, we specify a pattern that has `i` for the index in the tuple and
`&item` for the single byte in the tuple [2]. Because we get a reference to the
element from `.iter().enumerate()`, we use `&` in the pattern.

Inside the `for` loop, we search for the byte that represents the space by
using the byte literal syntax [4]. If we find a space, we return the position.
Otherwise, we return the length of the string by using `s.len()` [5].

We now have a way to find out the index of the end of the first word in the
string, but there’s a problem. We’re returning a `usize` on its own, but it’s
only a meaningful number in the context of the `&String`. In other words,
because it’s a separate value from the `String`, there’s no guarantee that it
will still be valid in the future. Consider the program in Listing 4-8 that
uses the `first_word` function from Listing 4-7.

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let mut s = String::from("hello world");

    let word = first_word(&s); // word will get the value 5

    s.clear(); // this empties the String, making it equal to ""

    // word still has the value 5 here, but there's no more string that
    // we could meaningfully use the value 5 with. word is now totally invalid!
}
```

Listing 4-8: Storing the result from calling the `first_word` function and then
changing the `String` contents

This program compiles without any errors and would also do so if we used `word`
after calling `s.clear()`. Because `word` isn’t connected to the state of `s`
at all, `word` still contains the value `5`. We could use that value `5` with
the variable `s` to try to extract the first word out, but this would be a bug
because the contents of `s` have changed since we saved `5` in `word`.

Having to worry about the index in `word` getting out of sync with the data in
`s` is tedious and error prone! Managing these indices is even more brittle if
we write a `second_word` function. Its signature would have to look like this:

```
fn second_word(s: &String) -> (usize, usize) {
```

Now we’re tracking a starting *and* an ending index, and we have even more
values that were calculated from data in a particular state but aren’t tied to
that state at all. We have three unrelated variables floating around that
need to be kept in sync.

Luckily, Rust has a solution to this problem: string slices.

### String Slices

A *string slice* is a reference to part of a `String`, and it looks like this:

```
    let s = String::from("hello world");

    let hello = &s[0..5];
    let world = &s[6..11];
```

Rather than a reference to the entire `String`, `hello` is a reference to a
portion of the `String`, specified in the extra `[0..5]` bit. We create slices
using a range within brackets by specifying `[starting_index..ending_index]`,
where `starting_index` is the first position in the slice and `ending_index` is
one more than the last position in the slice. Internally, the slice data
structure stores the starting position and the length of the slice, which
corresponds to `ending_index` minus `starting_index`. So in the case of `let
world = &s[6..11];`, `world` would be a slice that contains a pointer to the
byte at index 6 of `s` with a length value of 5.

Figure 4-6 shows this in a diagram.

<img alt="world containing a pointer to the byte at index 6 of String s and a length 5" src="img/trpl04-06.svg" class="center" style="width: 50%;" />

Figure 4-6: String slice referring to part of a `String`

With Rust’s `..` range syntax, if you want to start at index zero, you can drop
the value before the two periods. In other words, these are equal:

```
let s = String::from("hello");

let slice = &s[0..2];
let slice = &s[..2];
```

By the same token, if your slice includes the last byte of the `String`, you
can drop the trailing number. That means these are equal:

```
let s = String::from("hello");

let len = s.len();

let slice = &s[3..len];
let slice = &s[3..];
```

You can also drop both values to take a slice of the entire string. So these
are equal:

```
let s = String::from("hello");

let len = s.len();

let slice = &s[0..len];
let slice = &s[..];
```

> Note: String slice range indices must occur at valid UTF-8 character
> boundaries. If you attempt to create a string slice in the middle of a
> multibyte character, your program will exit with an error. For the purposes
> of introducing string slices, we are assuming ASCII only in this section; a
> more thorough discussion of UTF-8 handling is in the “Storing UTF-8 Encoded
> Text with Strings” section of Chapter 8.

With all this information in mind, let’s rewrite `first_word` to return a
slice. The type that signifies “string slice” is written as `&str`:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
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[..]
}
```

We get the index for the end of the word in the same way as we did in Listing
4-7, by looking for the first occurrence of a space. When we find a space, we
return a string slice using the start of the string and the index of the space
as the starting and ending indices.

Now when we call `first_word`, we get back a single value that is tied to the
underlying data. The value is made up of a reference to the starting point of
the slice and the number of elements in the slice.

Returning a slice would also work for a `second_word` function:

```
fn second_word(s: &String) -> &str {
```

We now have a straightforward API that’s much harder to mess up, because the
compiler will ensure the references into the `String` remain valid. Remember
the bug in the program in Listing 4-8, when we got the index to the end of the
first word but then cleared the string so our index was invalid? That code was
logically incorrect but didn’t show any immediate errors. The problems would
show up later if we kept trying to use the first word index with an emptied
string. Slices make this bug impossible and let us know we have a problem with
our code much sooner. Using the slice version of `first_word` will throw a
compile-time error:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let mut s = String::from("hello world");

    let word = first_word(&s);

    s.clear(); // error!

    println!("the first word is: {}", word);
}
```

Here’s the compiler error:

```
error[E0502]: cannot borrow `s` as mutable because it is also borrowed as
immutable
  --> src/main.rs:18:5
   |
16 |     let word = first_word(&s);
   |                           -- immutable borrow occurs here
17 |
18 |     s.clear(); // error!
   |     ^^^^^^^^^ mutable borrow occurs here
19 |
20 |     println!("the first word is: {}", word);
   |                                       ---- immutable borrow later used here
```

Recall from the borrowing rules that if we have an immutable reference to
something, we cannot also take a mutable reference. Because `clear` needs to
truncate the `String`, it needs to get a mutable reference. The `println!`
after the call to `clear` uses the reference in `word`, so the immutable
reference must still be active at that point. Rust disallows the mutable
reference in `clear` and the immutable reference in `word` from existing at the
same time, and compilation fails. Not only has Rust made our API easier to use,
but it has also eliminated an entire class of errors at compile time!

#### String Literals Are Slices

Recall that we talked about string literals being stored inside the binary. Now
that we know about slices, we can properly understand string literals:

```
let s = "Hello, world!";
```

The type of `s` here is `&str`: it’s a slice pointing to that specific point of
the binary. This is also why string literals are immutable; `&str` is an
immutable reference.

#### String Slices as Parameters

Knowing that you can take slices of literals and `String` values leads us to
one more improvement on `first_word`, and that’s its signature:

```
fn first_word(s: &String) -> &str {
```

A more experienced Rustacean would write the signature shown in Listing 4-9
instead because it allows us to use the same function on both `&String` values
and `&str` values.

```
fn first_word(s: &str) -> &str {
```

Listing 4-9: Improving the `first_word` function by using a string slice for
the type of the `s` parameter

If we have a string slice, we can pass that directly. If we have a `String`, we
can pass a slice of the `String` or a reference to the `String`. This
flexibility takes advantage of *deref coercions*, a feature we will cover in
the “Implicit Deref Coercions with Functions and Methods” section of Chapter
15. Defining a function to take a string slice instead of a reference to a
`String` makes our API more general and useful without losing any functionality:

Filename: src/main.rs

```
fn main() {
    let my_string = String::from("hello world");

    // `first_word` works on slices of `String`s, whether partial or whole
    let word = first_word(&my_string[0..6]);
    let word = first_word(&my_string[..]);
    // `first_word` also works on references to `String`s, which are equivalent
    // to whole slices of `String`s
    let word = first_word(&my_string);

    let my_string_literal = "hello world";

    // `first_word` works on slices of string literals, whether partial or whole
    let word = first_word(&my_string_literal[0..6]);
    let word = first_word(&my_string_literal[..]);

    // Because string literals *are* string slices already,
    // this works too, without the slice syntax!
    let word = first_word(my_string_literal);
}
```

### Other Slices

String slices, as you might imagine, are specific to strings. But there’s a
more general slice type, too. Consider this array:

```
let a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];
```

Just as we might want to refer to a part of a string, we might want to refer
to part of an array. We’d do so like this:

```
let a = [1, 2, 3, 4, 5];

let slice = &a[1..3];

assert_eq!(slice, &[2, 3]);
```

This slice has the type `&[i32]`. It works the same way as string slices do, by
storing a reference to the first element and a length. You’ll use this kind of
slice for all sorts of other collections. We’ll discuss these collections in
detail when we talk about vectors in Chapter 8.

## Summary

The concepts of ownership, borrowing, and slices ensure memory safety in Rust
programs at compile time. The Rust language gives you control over your memory
usage in the same way as other systems programming languages, but having the
owner of data automatically clean up that data when the owner goes out of scope
means you don’t have to write and debug extra code to get this control.

Ownership affects how lots of other parts of Rust work, so we’ll talk about
these concepts further throughout the rest of the book. Let’s move on to
Chapter 5 and look at grouping pieces of data together in a `struct`.
