Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

Categories

0 votes
657 views
in Technique[技术] by (71.8m points)

iterator - Difference between iter() and into_iter() on a shared, borrowed Vec?

I am reading the Rust 101 tutorial, where the author talks about shared borrowing with the example of a Vec object passed to a function. Below is a slightly adapted MWE of what the the tutorial is teaching. The interesting part is v.iter() in vec_min. The author writes:

This time, we explicitly request an iterator for the vector v. The method iter borrows the vector it works on, and provides shared borrows of the elements.

But what happens if I use a for ... in ... construction on an object which is shared? According to this blog post, this implicit for loop uses into_iter(), taking ownership of v. But it cannot really take ownership of the v in that function, since it has only borrowed it to begin with, right?

Can somebody explain the difference between into_iter() and iter() applied to a borrowed object to me?

enum NumberOrNothing {
    Number(i32),
    Nothing,
}
use self::NumberOrNothing::{Number,Nothing};

impl NumberOrNothing {
    fn print(self) {
        match self {
            Nothing => println!("The number is: <nothing>"),
            Number(n) => println!("The number is: {}", n),
        };
    }
}

fn vec_min(v: &Vec<i32>) -> NumberOrNothing {
    fn min_i32(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
        if a < b {a} else {b}
    }

    let mut min = Nothing;
    for e in v.iter() {
    //Alternatively implicitly and with *e replaced by e:
    //for e in v {
        min = Number(match min {
            Nothing => *e,
            Number(n) => min_i32(n, *e),
        });
    }
    min
}

pub fn main() {
    let vec = vec![18,5,7,2,9,27];
    let foo = Nothing;
    let min = vec_min(&vec);
    let min = vec_min(&vec);
    min.print();
}
See Question&Answers more detail:os

与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
Welcome To Ask or Share your Answers For Others

1 Reply

0 votes
by (71.8m points)

There isn't a difference.

it cannot really take ownership of the v in that function, since it has only borrowed it to begin with

It absolutely can take ownership of v, because that's a &Vec. Note the precise semantics here - you are taking ownership of the reference, not of the referred-to item.

If you check out the implementors of IntoIterator, you can find:

impl<'a, T> IntoIterator for &'a Vec<T>

And the source for that:

impl<'a, T, A: Allocator> IntoIterator for &'a Vec<T, A> {
    type Item = &'a T;
    type IntoIter = slice::Iter<'a, T>;

    fn into_iter(self) -> slice::Iter<'a, T> {
        self.iter()
    }
}

Surprise — it calls iter!

The same logic applies for &mut vec and vec.iter_mut()


与恶龙缠斗过久,自身亦成为恶龙;凝视深渊过久,深渊将回以凝视…
OGeek|极客中国-欢迎来到极客的世界,一个免费开放的程序员编程交流平台!开放,进步,分享!让技术改变生活,让极客改变未来! Welcome to OGeek Q&A Community for programmer and developer-Open, Learning and Share
Click Here to Ask a Question

1.4m articles

1.4m replys

5 comments

57.0k users

...