How can I move a captured variable into a closure within a closure?












17














This code is an inefficient way of producing a unique set of items from an iterator. To accomplish this, I am attempting to use a Vec to keep track of values I've seen. I believe that this Vec needs to be owned by the innermost closure:



fn main() {
let mut seen = vec!;
let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

let a: Vec<_> = items
.iter()
.flat_map(move |inner_numbers| {
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
if !seen.contains(&number) {
seen.push(number);
Some(number)
} else {
None
}
})
})
.collect();

println!("{:?}", a);
}


However, compilation fails with:



error[E0507]: cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure
--> src/main.rs:8:45
|
2 | let mut seen = vec!;
| -------- captured outer variable
...
8 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure









share|improve this question




















  • 2




    You wouldn't need the moves, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if the seen.push call is removed, it compiles fine). I suggest trying to boil the problem down a bit and filing an issue. flat_map is the cause for most of the confusing borrow checker errors I've gotten so far
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 0:52
















17














This code is an inefficient way of producing a unique set of items from an iterator. To accomplish this, I am attempting to use a Vec to keep track of values I've seen. I believe that this Vec needs to be owned by the innermost closure:



fn main() {
let mut seen = vec!;
let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

let a: Vec<_> = items
.iter()
.flat_map(move |inner_numbers| {
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
if !seen.contains(&number) {
seen.push(number);
Some(number)
} else {
None
}
})
})
.collect();

println!("{:?}", a);
}


However, compilation fails with:



error[E0507]: cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure
--> src/main.rs:8:45
|
2 | let mut seen = vec!;
| -------- captured outer variable
...
8 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure









share|improve this question




















  • 2




    You wouldn't need the moves, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if the seen.push call is removed, it compiles fine). I suggest trying to boil the problem down a bit and filing an issue. flat_map is the cause for most of the confusing borrow checker errors I've gotten so far
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 0:52














17












17








17


2





This code is an inefficient way of producing a unique set of items from an iterator. To accomplish this, I am attempting to use a Vec to keep track of values I've seen. I believe that this Vec needs to be owned by the innermost closure:



fn main() {
let mut seen = vec!;
let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

let a: Vec<_> = items
.iter()
.flat_map(move |inner_numbers| {
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
if !seen.contains(&number) {
seen.push(number);
Some(number)
} else {
None
}
})
})
.collect();

println!("{:?}", a);
}


However, compilation fails with:



error[E0507]: cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure
--> src/main.rs:8:45
|
2 | let mut seen = vec!;
| -------- captured outer variable
...
8 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure









share|improve this question















This code is an inefficient way of producing a unique set of items from an iterator. To accomplish this, I am attempting to use a Vec to keep track of values I've seen. I believe that this Vec needs to be owned by the innermost closure:



fn main() {
let mut seen = vec!;
let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

let a: Vec<_> = items
.iter()
.flat_map(move |inner_numbers| {
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
if !seen.contains(&number) {
seen.push(number);
Some(number)
} else {
None
}
})
})
.collect();

println!("{:?}", a);
}


However, compilation fails with:



error[E0507]: cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure
--> src/main.rs:8:45
|
2 | let mut seen = vec!;
| -------- captured outer variable
...
8 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(move |&number| {
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ cannot move out of captured outer variable in an `FnMut` closure






closures rust






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 14 '18 at 3:14

























asked Feb 14 '15 at 23:58









Shepmaster

148k12282417




148k12282417








  • 2




    You wouldn't need the moves, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if the seen.push call is removed, it compiles fine). I suggest trying to boil the problem down a bit and filing an issue. flat_map is the cause for most of the confusing borrow checker errors I've gotten so far
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 0:52














  • 2




    You wouldn't need the moves, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if the seen.push call is removed, it compiles fine). I suggest trying to boil the problem down a bit and filing an issue. flat_map is the cause for most of the confusing borrow checker errors I've gotten so far
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 0:52








2




2




You wouldn't need the moves, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if the seen.push call is removed, it compiles fine). I suggest trying to boil the problem down a bit and filing an issue. flat_map is the cause for most of the confusing borrow checker errors I've gotten so far
– Renato Zannon
Feb 15 '15 at 0:52




You wouldn't need the moves, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if the seen.push call is removed, it compiles fine). I suggest trying to boil the problem down a bit and filing an issue. flat_map is the cause for most of the confusing borrow checker errors I've gotten so far
– Renato Zannon
Feb 15 '15 at 0:52












2 Answers
2






active

oldest

votes


















22














This is a little surprising, but isn't a bug.



flat_map takes a FnMut as it needs to call the closure multiple times. The code with move on the inner closure fails because that closure is created multiple times, once for each inner_numbers. If I write the closures in explicit form (i.e. a struct that stores the captures and an implementation of one of the closure traits) your code looks (a bit) like



struct OuterClosure {
seen: Vec<i32>
}
struct InnerClosure {
seen: Vec<i32>
}
impl FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> for OuterClosure {
fn call_mut(&mut self, (inner_numbers,): &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> {
let inner = InnerClosure {
seen: self.seen // uh oh! a move out of a &mut pointer
};
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
}
}
impl FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure { ... }


Which makes the illegality clearer: attempting to move out of the &mut OuterClosure variable.





Theoretically, just capturing a mutable reference is sufficient, since the seen is only being modified (not moved) inside the closure. However things are too lazy for this to work...



error: lifetime of `seen` is too short to guarantee its contents can be safely reborrowed
--> src/main.rs:9:45
|
9 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
| ^^^^^^^^^
|
note: `seen` would have to be valid for the method call at 7:20...
--> src/main.rs:7:21
|
7 | let a: Vec<_> = items.iter()
| _____________________^
8 | | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
... |
17| | })
18| | .collect();
| |__________________^
note: ...but `seen` is only valid for the lifetime as defined on the body at 8:34
--> src/main.rs:8:35
|
8 | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
| ___________________________________^
9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
11| | seen.push(number);
... |
16| | })
17| | })
| |_________^


Removing the moves makes the closure captures work like



struct OuterClosure<'a> {
seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
}
struct InnerClosure<'a> {
seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
}
impl<'a> FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> for OuterClosure<'a> {
fn call_mut<'b>(&'b mut self, inner_numbers: &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> {
let inner = InnerClosure {
seen: &mut *self.seen // can't move out, so must be a reborrow
};
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
}
}
impl<'a> FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure<'a> { ... }


(I've named the &mut self lifetime in this one, for pedagogical purposes.)



This case is definitely more subtle. The FilterMap iterator stores the closure internally, meaning any references in the closure value (that is, any references it captures) have to be valid as long as the FilterMap values are being thrown around, and, for &mut references, any references have to be careful to be non-aliased.



The compiler can't be sure flat_map won't, e.g. store all the returned iterators in a Vec<FilterMap<...>> which would result in a pile of aliased &muts... very bad! I think this specific use of flat_map happens to be safe, but I'm not sure it is in general, and there's certainly functions with the same style of signature as flat_map (e.g. map) would definitely be unsafe. (In fact, replacing flat_map with map in the code gives the Vec situation I just described.)



For the error message: self is effectively (ignoring the struct wrapper) &'b mut (&'a mut Vec<i32>) where 'b is the lifetime of &mut self reference and 'a is the lifetime of the reference in the struct. Moving the inner &mut out is illegal: can't move an affine type like &mut out of a reference (it would work with &Vec<i32>, though), so the only choice is to reborrow. A reborrow is going through the outer reference and so cannot outlive it, that is, the &mut *self.seen reborrow is a &'b mut Vec<i32>, not a &'a mut Vec<i32>.



This makes the inner closure have type InnerClosure<'b>, and hence the call_mut method is trying to return a FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<'b>>. Unfortunately, the FnMut trait defines call_mut as just



pub trait FnMut<Args>: FnOnce<Args> {
extern "rust-call" fn call_mut(&mut self, args: Args) -> Self::Output;
}


In particular, there's no connection between the lifetime of the self reference itself and the returned value, and so it is illegal to try to return InnerClosure<'b> which has that link. This is why the compiler is complaining that the lifetime is too short to be able to reborrow.



This is extremely similar to the Iterator::next method, and the code here is failing for basically the same reason that one cannot have an iterator over references into memory that the iterator itself owns. (I imagine a "streaming iterator" (iterators with a link between &mut self and the return value in next) library would be able to provide a flat_map that works with the code nearly written: would need "closure" traits with a similar link.)



Work-arounds include:




  • the RefCell suggested by Renato Zannon, which allows seen to be borrowed as a shared &. The desugared closure code is basically the same other than changing the &mut Vec<i32> to &Vec<i32>. This change means "reborrow" of the &'b mut &'a RefCell<Vec<i32>> can just be a copy of the &'a ... out of the &mut. It's a literal copy, so the lifetime is retained.

  • avoiding the laziness of iterators, to avoid returning the inner closure, specifically.collect::<Vec<_>>()ing inside the loop to run through the whole filter_map before returning.


fn main() {
let mut seen = vec!;
let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

let a: Vec<_> = items
.iter()
.flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
inner_numbers
.iter()
.filter_map(|&number| if !seen.contains(&number) {
seen.push(number);
Some(number)
} else {
None
})
.collect::<Vec<_>>()
.into_iter()
})
.collect();

println!("{:?}", a);
}


I imagine the RefCell version is more efficient.






share|improve this answer



















  • 4




    Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 14:21





















5














It seems that the borrow checker is getting confused at the nested closures + mutable borrow. It might be worth filing an issue. Edit: See huon's answer for why this isn't a bug.



As a workaround, it's possible to resort to RefCell here:



use std::cell::RefCell;

fn main() {
let seen = vec!;
let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

let seen_cell = RefCell::new(seen);

let a: Vec<_> = items
.iter()
.flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
let mut borrowed = seen_cell.borrow_mut();

if !borrowed.contains(&number) {
borrowed.push(number);
Some(number)
} else {
None
}
})
})
.collect();

println!("{:?}", a);
}





share|improve this answer























    Your Answer






    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
    StackExchange.snippets.init();
    });
    });
    }, "code-snippets");

    StackExchange.ready(function() {
    var channelOptions = {
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "1"
    };
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
    createEditor();
    });
    }
    else {
    createEditor();
    }
    });

    function createEditor() {
    StackExchange.prepareEditor({
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader: {
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    },
    onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f28521637%2fhow-can-i-move-a-captured-variable-into-a-closure-within-a-closure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes








    2 Answers
    2






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    22














    This is a little surprising, but isn't a bug.



    flat_map takes a FnMut as it needs to call the closure multiple times. The code with move on the inner closure fails because that closure is created multiple times, once for each inner_numbers. If I write the closures in explicit form (i.e. a struct that stores the captures and an implementation of one of the closure traits) your code looks (a bit) like



    struct OuterClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    impl FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> for OuterClosure {
    fn call_mut(&mut self, (inner_numbers,): &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: self.seen // uh oh! a move out of a &mut pointer
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure { ... }


    Which makes the illegality clearer: attempting to move out of the &mut OuterClosure variable.





    Theoretically, just capturing a mutable reference is sufficient, since the seen is only being modified (not moved) inside the closure. However things are too lazy for this to work...



    error: lifetime of `seen` is too short to guarantee its contents can be safely reborrowed
    --> src/main.rs:9:45
    |
    9 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    | ^^^^^^^^^
    |
    note: `seen` would have to be valid for the method call at 7:20...
    --> src/main.rs:7:21
    |
    7 | let a: Vec<_> = items.iter()
    | _____________________^
    8 | | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    ... |
    17| | })
    18| | .collect();
    | |__________________^
    note: ...but `seen` is only valid for the lifetime as defined on the body at 8:34
    --> src/main.rs:8:35
    |
    8 | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    | ___________________________________^
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    11| | seen.push(number);
    ... |
    16| | })
    17| | })
    | |_________^


    Removing the moves makes the closure captures work like



    struct OuterClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> for OuterClosure<'a> {
    fn call_mut<'b>(&'b mut self, inner_numbers: &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: &mut *self.seen // can't move out, so must be a reborrow
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure<'a> { ... }


    (I've named the &mut self lifetime in this one, for pedagogical purposes.)



    This case is definitely more subtle. The FilterMap iterator stores the closure internally, meaning any references in the closure value (that is, any references it captures) have to be valid as long as the FilterMap values are being thrown around, and, for &mut references, any references have to be careful to be non-aliased.



    The compiler can't be sure flat_map won't, e.g. store all the returned iterators in a Vec<FilterMap<...>> which would result in a pile of aliased &muts... very bad! I think this specific use of flat_map happens to be safe, but I'm not sure it is in general, and there's certainly functions with the same style of signature as flat_map (e.g. map) would definitely be unsafe. (In fact, replacing flat_map with map in the code gives the Vec situation I just described.)



    For the error message: self is effectively (ignoring the struct wrapper) &'b mut (&'a mut Vec<i32>) where 'b is the lifetime of &mut self reference and 'a is the lifetime of the reference in the struct. Moving the inner &mut out is illegal: can't move an affine type like &mut out of a reference (it would work with &Vec<i32>, though), so the only choice is to reborrow. A reborrow is going through the outer reference and so cannot outlive it, that is, the &mut *self.seen reborrow is a &'b mut Vec<i32>, not a &'a mut Vec<i32>.



    This makes the inner closure have type InnerClosure<'b>, and hence the call_mut method is trying to return a FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<'b>>. Unfortunately, the FnMut trait defines call_mut as just



    pub trait FnMut<Args>: FnOnce<Args> {
    extern "rust-call" fn call_mut(&mut self, args: Args) -> Self::Output;
    }


    In particular, there's no connection between the lifetime of the self reference itself and the returned value, and so it is illegal to try to return InnerClosure<'b> which has that link. This is why the compiler is complaining that the lifetime is too short to be able to reborrow.



    This is extremely similar to the Iterator::next method, and the code here is failing for basically the same reason that one cannot have an iterator over references into memory that the iterator itself owns. (I imagine a "streaming iterator" (iterators with a link between &mut self and the return value in next) library would be able to provide a flat_map that works with the code nearly written: would need "closure" traits with a similar link.)



    Work-arounds include:




    • the RefCell suggested by Renato Zannon, which allows seen to be borrowed as a shared &. The desugared closure code is basically the same other than changing the &mut Vec<i32> to &Vec<i32>. This change means "reborrow" of the &'b mut &'a RefCell<Vec<i32>> can just be a copy of the &'a ... out of the &mut. It's a literal copy, so the lifetime is retained.

    • avoiding the laziness of iterators, to avoid returning the inner closure, specifically.collect::<Vec<_>>()ing inside the loop to run through the whole filter_map before returning.


    fn main() {
    let mut seen = vec!;
    let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

    let a: Vec<_> = items
    .iter()
    .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    inner_numbers
    .iter()
    .filter_map(|&number| if !seen.contains(&number) {
    seen.push(number);
    Some(number)
    } else {
    None
    })
    .collect::<Vec<_>>()
    .into_iter()
    })
    .collect();

    println!("{:?}", a);
    }


    I imagine the RefCell version is more efficient.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4




      Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
      – Renato Zannon
      Feb 15 '15 at 14:21


















    22














    This is a little surprising, but isn't a bug.



    flat_map takes a FnMut as it needs to call the closure multiple times. The code with move on the inner closure fails because that closure is created multiple times, once for each inner_numbers. If I write the closures in explicit form (i.e. a struct that stores the captures and an implementation of one of the closure traits) your code looks (a bit) like



    struct OuterClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    impl FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> for OuterClosure {
    fn call_mut(&mut self, (inner_numbers,): &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: self.seen // uh oh! a move out of a &mut pointer
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure { ... }


    Which makes the illegality clearer: attempting to move out of the &mut OuterClosure variable.





    Theoretically, just capturing a mutable reference is sufficient, since the seen is only being modified (not moved) inside the closure. However things are too lazy for this to work...



    error: lifetime of `seen` is too short to guarantee its contents can be safely reborrowed
    --> src/main.rs:9:45
    |
    9 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    | ^^^^^^^^^
    |
    note: `seen` would have to be valid for the method call at 7:20...
    --> src/main.rs:7:21
    |
    7 | let a: Vec<_> = items.iter()
    | _____________________^
    8 | | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    ... |
    17| | })
    18| | .collect();
    | |__________________^
    note: ...but `seen` is only valid for the lifetime as defined on the body at 8:34
    --> src/main.rs:8:35
    |
    8 | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    | ___________________________________^
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    11| | seen.push(number);
    ... |
    16| | })
    17| | })
    | |_________^


    Removing the moves makes the closure captures work like



    struct OuterClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> for OuterClosure<'a> {
    fn call_mut<'b>(&'b mut self, inner_numbers: &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: &mut *self.seen // can't move out, so must be a reborrow
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure<'a> { ... }


    (I've named the &mut self lifetime in this one, for pedagogical purposes.)



    This case is definitely more subtle. The FilterMap iterator stores the closure internally, meaning any references in the closure value (that is, any references it captures) have to be valid as long as the FilterMap values are being thrown around, and, for &mut references, any references have to be careful to be non-aliased.



    The compiler can't be sure flat_map won't, e.g. store all the returned iterators in a Vec<FilterMap<...>> which would result in a pile of aliased &muts... very bad! I think this specific use of flat_map happens to be safe, but I'm not sure it is in general, and there's certainly functions with the same style of signature as flat_map (e.g. map) would definitely be unsafe. (In fact, replacing flat_map with map in the code gives the Vec situation I just described.)



    For the error message: self is effectively (ignoring the struct wrapper) &'b mut (&'a mut Vec<i32>) where 'b is the lifetime of &mut self reference and 'a is the lifetime of the reference in the struct. Moving the inner &mut out is illegal: can't move an affine type like &mut out of a reference (it would work with &Vec<i32>, though), so the only choice is to reborrow. A reborrow is going through the outer reference and so cannot outlive it, that is, the &mut *self.seen reborrow is a &'b mut Vec<i32>, not a &'a mut Vec<i32>.



    This makes the inner closure have type InnerClosure<'b>, and hence the call_mut method is trying to return a FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<'b>>. Unfortunately, the FnMut trait defines call_mut as just



    pub trait FnMut<Args>: FnOnce<Args> {
    extern "rust-call" fn call_mut(&mut self, args: Args) -> Self::Output;
    }


    In particular, there's no connection between the lifetime of the self reference itself and the returned value, and so it is illegal to try to return InnerClosure<'b> which has that link. This is why the compiler is complaining that the lifetime is too short to be able to reborrow.



    This is extremely similar to the Iterator::next method, and the code here is failing for basically the same reason that one cannot have an iterator over references into memory that the iterator itself owns. (I imagine a "streaming iterator" (iterators with a link between &mut self and the return value in next) library would be able to provide a flat_map that works with the code nearly written: would need "closure" traits with a similar link.)



    Work-arounds include:




    • the RefCell suggested by Renato Zannon, which allows seen to be borrowed as a shared &. The desugared closure code is basically the same other than changing the &mut Vec<i32> to &Vec<i32>. This change means "reborrow" of the &'b mut &'a RefCell<Vec<i32>> can just be a copy of the &'a ... out of the &mut. It's a literal copy, so the lifetime is retained.

    • avoiding the laziness of iterators, to avoid returning the inner closure, specifically.collect::<Vec<_>>()ing inside the loop to run through the whole filter_map before returning.


    fn main() {
    let mut seen = vec!;
    let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

    let a: Vec<_> = items
    .iter()
    .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    inner_numbers
    .iter()
    .filter_map(|&number| if !seen.contains(&number) {
    seen.push(number);
    Some(number)
    } else {
    None
    })
    .collect::<Vec<_>>()
    .into_iter()
    })
    .collect();

    println!("{:?}", a);
    }


    I imagine the RefCell version is more efficient.






    share|improve this answer



















    • 4




      Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
      – Renato Zannon
      Feb 15 '15 at 14:21
















    22












    22








    22






    This is a little surprising, but isn't a bug.



    flat_map takes a FnMut as it needs to call the closure multiple times. The code with move on the inner closure fails because that closure is created multiple times, once for each inner_numbers. If I write the closures in explicit form (i.e. a struct that stores the captures and an implementation of one of the closure traits) your code looks (a bit) like



    struct OuterClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    impl FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> for OuterClosure {
    fn call_mut(&mut self, (inner_numbers,): &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: self.seen // uh oh! a move out of a &mut pointer
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure { ... }


    Which makes the illegality clearer: attempting to move out of the &mut OuterClosure variable.





    Theoretically, just capturing a mutable reference is sufficient, since the seen is only being modified (not moved) inside the closure. However things are too lazy for this to work...



    error: lifetime of `seen` is too short to guarantee its contents can be safely reborrowed
    --> src/main.rs:9:45
    |
    9 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    | ^^^^^^^^^
    |
    note: `seen` would have to be valid for the method call at 7:20...
    --> src/main.rs:7:21
    |
    7 | let a: Vec<_> = items.iter()
    | _____________________^
    8 | | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    ... |
    17| | })
    18| | .collect();
    | |__________________^
    note: ...but `seen` is only valid for the lifetime as defined on the body at 8:34
    --> src/main.rs:8:35
    |
    8 | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    | ___________________________________^
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    11| | seen.push(number);
    ... |
    16| | })
    17| | })
    | |_________^


    Removing the moves makes the closure captures work like



    struct OuterClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> for OuterClosure<'a> {
    fn call_mut<'b>(&'b mut self, inner_numbers: &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: &mut *self.seen // can't move out, so must be a reborrow
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure<'a> { ... }


    (I've named the &mut self lifetime in this one, for pedagogical purposes.)



    This case is definitely more subtle. The FilterMap iterator stores the closure internally, meaning any references in the closure value (that is, any references it captures) have to be valid as long as the FilterMap values are being thrown around, and, for &mut references, any references have to be careful to be non-aliased.



    The compiler can't be sure flat_map won't, e.g. store all the returned iterators in a Vec<FilterMap<...>> which would result in a pile of aliased &muts... very bad! I think this specific use of flat_map happens to be safe, but I'm not sure it is in general, and there's certainly functions with the same style of signature as flat_map (e.g. map) would definitely be unsafe. (In fact, replacing flat_map with map in the code gives the Vec situation I just described.)



    For the error message: self is effectively (ignoring the struct wrapper) &'b mut (&'a mut Vec<i32>) where 'b is the lifetime of &mut self reference and 'a is the lifetime of the reference in the struct. Moving the inner &mut out is illegal: can't move an affine type like &mut out of a reference (it would work with &Vec<i32>, though), so the only choice is to reborrow. A reborrow is going through the outer reference and so cannot outlive it, that is, the &mut *self.seen reborrow is a &'b mut Vec<i32>, not a &'a mut Vec<i32>.



    This makes the inner closure have type InnerClosure<'b>, and hence the call_mut method is trying to return a FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<'b>>. Unfortunately, the FnMut trait defines call_mut as just



    pub trait FnMut<Args>: FnOnce<Args> {
    extern "rust-call" fn call_mut(&mut self, args: Args) -> Self::Output;
    }


    In particular, there's no connection between the lifetime of the self reference itself and the returned value, and so it is illegal to try to return InnerClosure<'b> which has that link. This is why the compiler is complaining that the lifetime is too short to be able to reborrow.



    This is extremely similar to the Iterator::next method, and the code here is failing for basically the same reason that one cannot have an iterator over references into memory that the iterator itself owns. (I imagine a "streaming iterator" (iterators with a link between &mut self and the return value in next) library would be able to provide a flat_map that works with the code nearly written: would need "closure" traits with a similar link.)



    Work-arounds include:




    • the RefCell suggested by Renato Zannon, which allows seen to be borrowed as a shared &. The desugared closure code is basically the same other than changing the &mut Vec<i32> to &Vec<i32>. This change means "reborrow" of the &'b mut &'a RefCell<Vec<i32>> can just be a copy of the &'a ... out of the &mut. It's a literal copy, so the lifetime is retained.

    • avoiding the laziness of iterators, to avoid returning the inner closure, specifically.collect::<Vec<_>>()ing inside the loop to run through the whole filter_map before returning.


    fn main() {
    let mut seen = vec!;
    let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

    let a: Vec<_> = items
    .iter()
    .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    inner_numbers
    .iter()
    .filter_map(|&number| if !seen.contains(&number) {
    seen.push(number);
    Some(number)
    } else {
    None
    })
    .collect::<Vec<_>>()
    .into_iter()
    })
    .collect();

    println!("{:?}", a);
    }


    I imagine the RefCell version is more efficient.






    share|improve this answer














    This is a little surprising, but isn't a bug.



    flat_map takes a FnMut as it needs to call the closure multiple times. The code with move on the inner closure fails because that closure is created multiple times, once for each inner_numbers. If I write the closures in explicit form (i.e. a struct that stores the captures and an implementation of one of the closure traits) your code looks (a bit) like



    struct OuterClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure {
    seen: Vec<i32>
    }
    impl FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> for OuterClosure {
    fn call_mut(&mut self, (inner_numbers,): &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: self.seen // uh oh! a move out of a &mut pointer
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure { ... }


    Which makes the illegality clearer: attempting to move out of the &mut OuterClosure variable.





    Theoretically, just capturing a mutable reference is sufficient, since the seen is only being modified (not moved) inside the closure. However things are too lazy for this to work...



    error: lifetime of `seen` is too short to guarantee its contents can be safely reborrowed
    --> src/main.rs:9:45
    |
    9 | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    | ^^^^^^^^^
    |
    note: `seen` would have to be valid for the method call at 7:20...
    --> src/main.rs:7:21
    |
    7 | let a: Vec<_> = items.iter()
    | _____________________^
    8 | | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    ... |
    17| | })
    18| | .collect();
    | |__________________^
    note: ...but `seen` is only valid for the lifetime as defined on the body at 8:34
    --> src/main.rs:8:35
    |
    8 | .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    | ___________________________________^
    9 | | inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    10| | if !seen.contains(&number) {
    11| | seen.push(number);
    ... |
    16| | })
    17| | })
    | |_________^


    Removing the moves makes the closure captures work like



    struct OuterClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    struct InnerClosure<'a> {
    seen: &'a mut Vec<i32>
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> for OuterClosure<'a> {
    fn call_mut<'b>(&'b mut self, inner_numbers: &Vec<i32>) -> iter::FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<??>> {
    let inner = InnerClosure {
    seen: &mut *self.seen // can't move out, so must be a reborrow
    };
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(inner)
    }
    }
    impl<'a> FnMut(&i32) -> Option<i32> for InnerClosure<'a> { ... }


    (I've named the &mut self lifetime in this one, for pedagogical purposes.)



    This case is definitely more subtle. The FilterMap iterator stores the closure internally, meaning any references in the closure value (that is, any references it captures) have to be valid as long as the FilterMap values are being thrown around, and, for &mut references, any references have to be careful to be non-aliased.



    The compiler can't be sure flat_map won't, e.g. store all the returned iterators in a Vec<FilterMap<...>> which would result in a pile of aliased &muts... very bad! I think this specific use of flat_map happens to be safe, but I'm not sure it is in general, and there's certainly functions with the same style of signature as flat_map (e.g. map) would definitely be unsafe. (In fact, replacing flat_map with map in the code gives the Vec situation I just described.)



    For the error message: self is effectively (ignoring the struct wrapper) &'b mut (&'a mut Vec<i32>) where 'b is the lifetime of &mut self reference and 'a is the lifetime of the reference in the struct. Moving the inner &mut out is illegal: can't move an affine type like &mut out of a reference (it would work with &Vec<i32>, though), so the only choice is to reborrow. A reborrow is going through the outer reference and so cannot outlive it, that is, the &mut *self.seen reborrow is a &'b mut Vec<i32>, not a &'a mut Vec<i32>.



    This makes the inner closure have type InnerClosure<'b>, and hence the call_mut method is trying to return a FilterMap<..., InnerClosure<'b>>. Unfortunately, the FnMut trait defines call_mut as just



    pub trait FnMut<Args>: FnOnce<Args> {
    extern "rust-call" fn call_mut(&mut self, args: Args) -> Self::Output;
    }


    In particular, there's no connection between the lifetime of the self reference itself and the returned value, and so it is illegal to try to return InnerClosure<'b> which has that link. This is why the compiler is complaining that the lifetime is too short to be able to reborrow.



    This is extremely similar to the Iterator::next method, and the code here is failing for basically the same reason that one cannot have an iterator over references into memory that the iterator itself owns. (I imagine a "streaming iterator" (iterators with a link between &mut self and the return value in next) library would be able to provide a flat_map that works with the code nearly written: would need "closure" traits with a similar link.)



    Work-arounds include:




    • the RefCell suggested by Renato Zannon, which allows seen to be borrowed as a shared &. The desugared closure code is basically the same other than changing the &mut Vec<i32> to &Vec<i32>. This change means "reborrow" of the &'b mut &'a RefCell<Vec<i32>> can just be a copy of the &'a ... out of the &mut. It's a literal copy, so the lifetime is retained.

    • avoiding the laziness of iterators, to avoid returning the inner closure, specifically.collect::<Vec<_>>()ing inside the loop to run through the whole filter_map before returning.


    fn main() {
    let mut seen = vec!;
    let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

    let a: Vec<_> = items
    .iter()
    .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    inner_numbers
    .iter()
    .filter_map(|&number| if !seen.contains(&number) {
    seen.push(number);
    Some(number)
    } else {
    None
    })
    .collect::<Vec<_>>()
    .into_iter()
    })
    .collect();

    println!("{:?}", a);
    }


    I imagine the RefCell version is more efficient.







    share|improve this answer














    share|improve this answer



    share|improve this answer








    edited Jul 20 '17 at 16:37









    Shepmaster

    148k12282417




    148k12282417










    answered Feb 15 '15 at 12:43









    huon

    54.2k7143172




    54.2k7143172








    • 4




      Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
      – Renato Zannon
      Feb 15 '15 at 14:21
















    • 4




      Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
      – Renato Zannon
      Feb 15 '15 at 14:21










    4




    4




    Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 14:21






    Great answer! Very educational. An additional alternative would be to just write the code using for loops instead - it's arguably simpler than both workarounds, and probably more efficient
    – Renato Zannon
    Feb 15 '15 at 14:21















    5














    It seems that the borrow checker is getting confused at the nested closures + mutable borrow. It might be worth filing an issue. Edit: See huon's answer for why this isn't a bug.



    As a workaround, it's possible to resort to RefCell here:



    use std::cell::RefCell;

    fn main() {
    let seen = vec!;
    let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

    let seen_cell = RefCell::new(seen);

    let a: Vec<_> = items
    .iter()
    .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
    inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
    let mut borrowed = seen_cell.borrow_mut();

    if !borrowed.contains(&number) {
    borrowed.push(number);
    Some(number)
    } else {
    None
    }
    })
    })
    .collect();

    println!("{:?}", a);
    }





    share|improve this answer




























      5














      It seems that the borrow checker is getting confused at the nested closures + mutable borrow. It might be worth filing an issue. Edit: See huon's answer for why this isn't a bug.



      As a workaround, it's possible to resort to RefCell here:



      use std::cell::RefCell;

      fn main() {
      let seen = vec!;
      let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

      let seen_cell = RefCell::new(seen);

      let a: Vec<_> = items
      .iter()
      .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
      inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
      let mut borrowed = seen_cell.borrow_mut();

      if !borrowed.contains(&number) {
      borrowed.push(number);
      Some(number)
      } else {
      None
      }
      })
      })
      .collect();

      println!("{:?}", a);
      }





      share|improve this answer


























        5












        5








        5






        It seems that the borrow checker is getting confused at the nested closures + mutable borrow. It might be worth filing an issue. Edit: See huon's answer for why this isn't a bug.



        As a workaround, it's possible to resort to RefCell here:



        use std::cell::RefCell;

        fn main() {
        let seen = vec!;
        let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

        let seen_cell = RefCell::new(seen);

        let a: Vec<_> = items
        .iter()
        .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
        inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
        let mut borrowed = seen_cell.borrow_mut();

        if !borrowed.contains(&number) {
        borrowed.push(number);
        Some(number)
        } else {
        None
        }
        })
        })
        .collect();

        println!("{:?}", a);
        }





        share|improve this answer














        It seems that the borrow checker is getting confused at the nested closures + mutable borrow. It might be worth filing an issue. Edit: See huon's answer for why this isn't a bug.



        As a workaround, it's possible to resort to RefCell here:



        use std::cell::RefCell;

        fn main() {
        let seen = vec!;
        let items = vec![vec![1i32, 2], vec![3], vec![1]];

        let seen_cell = RefCell::new(seen);

        let a: Vec<_> = items
        .iter()
        .flat_map(|inner_numbers| {
        inner_numbers.iter().filter_map(|&number| {
        let mut borrowed = seen_cell.borrow_mut();

        if !borrowed.contains(&number) {
        borrowed.push(number);
        Some(number)
        } else {
        None
        }
        })
        })
        .collect();

        println!("{:?}", a);
        }






        share|improve this answer














        share|improve this answer



        share|improve this answer








        edited Jul 20 '17 at 16:38









        Shepmaster

        148k12282417




        148k12282417










        answered Feb 15 '15 at 0:56









        Renato Zannon

        17.8k62433




        17.8k62433






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid



            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f28521637%2fhow-can-i-move-a-captured-variable-into-a-closure-within-a-closure%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown







            Popular posts from this blog

            鏡平學校

            ꓛꓣだゔៀៅຸ໢ທຮ໕໒ ,ໂ'໥໓າ໼ឨឲ៵៭ៈゎゔit''䖳𥁄卿' ☨₤₨こゎもょの;ꜹꟚꞖꞵꟅꞛေၦေɯ,ɨɡ𛃵𛁹ޝ޳ޠ޾,ޤޒޯ޾𫝒𫠁သ𛅤チョ'サノބޘދ𛁐ᶿᶇᶀᶋᶠ㨑㽹⻮ꧬ꧹؍۩وَؠ㇕㇃㇪ ㇦㇋㇋ṜẰᵡᴠ 軌ᵕ搜۳ٰޗޮ޷ސޯ𫖾𫅀ल, ꙭ꙰ꚅꙁꚊꞻꝔ꟠Ꝭㄤﺟޱސꧨꧼ꧴ꧯꧽ꧲ꧯ'⽹⽭⾁⿞⼳⽋២៩ញណើꩯꩤ꩸ꩮᶻᶺᶧᶂ𫳲𫪭𬸄𫵰𬖩𬫣𬊉ၲ𛅬㕦䬺𫝌𫝼,,𫟖𫞽ហៅ஫㆔ాఆఅꙒꚞꙍ,Ꙟ꙱エ ,ポテ,フࢰࢯ𫟠𫞶 𫝤𫟠ﺕﹱﻜﻣ𪵕𪭸𪻆𪾩𫔷ġ,ŧآꞪ꟥,ꞔꝻ♚☹⛵𛀌ꬷꭞȄƁƪƬșƦǙǗdžƝǯǧⱦⱰꓕꓢႋ神 ဴ၀க௭எ௫ឫោ ' េㇷㇴㇼ神ㇸㇲㇽㇴㇼㇻㇸ'ㇸㇿㇸㇹㇰㆣꓚꓤ₡₧ ㄨㄟ㄂ㄖㄎ໗ツڒذ₶।ऩछएोञयूटक़कयँृी,冬'𛅢𛅥ㇱㇵㇶ𥄥𦒽𠣧𠊓𧢖𥞘𩔋цѰㄠſtʯʭɿʆʗʍʩɷɛ,əʏダヵㄐㄘR{gỚṖḺờṠṫảḙḭᴮᵏᴘᵀᵷᵕᴜᴏᵾq﮲ﲿﴽﭙ軌ﰬﶚﶧ﫲Ҝжюїкӈㇴffצּ﬘﭅﬈軌'ffistfflſtffतभफɳɰʊɲʎ𛁱𛁖𛁮𛀉 𛂯𛀞నఋŀŲ 𫟲𫠖𫞺ຆຆ ໹້໕໗ๆทԊꧢꧠ꧰ꓱ⿝⼑ŎḬẃẖỐẅ ,ờỰỈỗﮊDžȩꭏꭎꬻ꭮ꬿꭖꭥꭅ㇭神 ⾈ꓵꓑ⺄㄄ㄪㄙㄅㄇstA۵䞽ॶ𫞑𫝄㇉㇇゜軌𩜛𩳠Jﻺ‚Üမ႕ႌႊၐၸဓၞၞၡ៸wyvtᶎᶪᶹစဎ꣡꣰꣢꣤ٗ؋لㇳㇾㇻㇱ㆐㆔,,㆟Ⱶヤマފ޼ޝަݿݞݠݷݐ',ݘ,ݪݙݵ𬝉𬜁𫝨𫞘くせぉて¼óû×ó£…𛅑הㄙくԗԀ5606神45,神796'𪤻𫞧ꓐ㄁ㄘɥɺꓵꓲ3''7034׉ⱦⱠˆ“𫝋ȍ,ꩲ軌꩷ꩶꩧꩫఞ۔فڱێظペサ神ナᴦᵑ47 9238їﻂ䐊䔉㠸﬎ffiﬣ,לּᴷᴦᵛᵽ,ᴨᵤ ᵸᵥᴗᵈꚏꚉꚟ⻆rtǟƴ𬎎

            Why https connections are so slow when debugging (stepping over) in Java?