How can I move a captured variable into a closure within a closure?
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
add a comment |
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
2
You wouldn't need themove
s, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if theseen.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
add a comment |
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
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
closures rust
edited Nov 14 '18 at 3:14
asked Feb 14 '15 at 23:58
Shepmaster
148k12282417
148k12282417
2
You wouldn't need themove
s, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if theseen.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
add a comment |
2
You wouldn't need themove
s, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if theseen.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
move
s, 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
move
s, 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
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
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 move
s 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 &mut
s... 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 allowsseen
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 wholefilter_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.
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
add a comment |
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);
}
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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 move
s 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 &mut
s... 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 allowsseen
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 wholefilter_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.
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
add a comment |
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 move
s 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 &mut
s... 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 allowsseen
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 wholefilter_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.
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
add a comment |
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 move
s 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 &mut
s... 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 allowsseen
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 wholefilter_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.
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 move
s 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 &mut
s... 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 allowsseen
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 wholefilter_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.
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
add a comment |
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
add a comment |
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);
}
add a comment |
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);
}
add a comment |
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);
}
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);
}
edited Jul 20 '17 at 16:38
Shepmaster
148k12282417
148k12282417
answered Feb 15 '15 at 0:56
Renato Zannon
17.8k62433
17.8k62433
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
2
You wouldn't need the
move
s, a mutable borrow would've been fine. But for some reason I don't fully understand the borrow checker won't allow it (if theseen.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