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

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 are references, and they allow you to refer to some value without taking ownership of it. Figure 4-5 shows a diagram.

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

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

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 {
}

The 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 goes out of scope.

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:

The scope in which the variable s is valid is the same as any function parameter’s scope, but we don’t drop what the reference points to when it goes out of scope because we don’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 having references as function parameters 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.

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:

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

We can fix the error in the code from Listing 4-6 with just a small tweak:

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 had to change s to be mut. Then we had to create a mutable reference with &mut s and accept a mutable reference with some_string: &mut String.

But mutable references have one big restriction: you can have only one mutable reference to a particular piece of data in a particular scope. This code will fail:

Filename: src/main.rs

fn main() { let mut s = String::from("hello"); let r1 = &mut s; let r2 = &mut s; println!("{}, {}", r1, r2); }

Here’s the error:

$ cargo run Compiling ownership v0.1.0 (file:///projects/ownership) 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 error: aborting due to previous error For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0499`. error: could not compile `ownership` To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

This restriction 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.

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 from happening because it won’t even 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:

A similar rule exists for combining mutable and immutable references. This code results in an error:

fn main() { 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:

$ cargo run Compiling ownership v0.1.0 (file:///projects/ownership) 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 error: aborting due to previous error For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0502`. error: could not compile `ownership` To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

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 occurs before the mutable reference is introduced:

fn main() {
    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.

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.

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, which Rust will prevent 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:

$ cargo run Compiling ownership v0.1.0 (file:///projects/ownership) 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 { | ^^^^^^^^ error: aborting due to previous error For more information about this error, try `rustc --explain E0106`. error: could not compile `ownership` To learn more, run the command again with --verbose.

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 main() { let reference_to_nothing = dangle(); } 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:

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

• At any given time, you can have either one mutable reference or any number of immutable references.

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