Per Steve Klabnik's writeup in the pre-Rust 1.0 documentation on the difference between String and &str, in Rust you should use &str unless you really need to have ownership over a String. Similarly, it's recommended to use references to slices (&[]) instead of Vecs unless you really need ownership over the Vec.
I have a Vec<String> and I want to write a function that uses this sequence of strings and it doesn't need ownership over the Vec or String instances, should that function take &[&str]? If so, what's the best way to reference the Vec<String> into &[&str]? Or, is this coercion overkill?
You can create a function that accepts both &[String] and &[&str] using the AsRef trait:
fn test<T: AsRef<str>>(inp: &[T]) { for x in inp { print!("{} ", x.as_ref()) } println!(""); } fn main() { let vref = vec!["Hello", "world!"]; let vown = vec!["May the Force".to_owned(), "be with you.".to_owned()]; test(&vref); test(&vown); }
This is actually impossible without memory allocation1.
Going from String to &str is not just viewing the bits in a different light; String and &str have a different memory layout, and thus going from one to the other requires creating a new object. The same applies to Vec and &[]
Therefore, whilst you can go from Vec<T> to &[T], and thus from Vec<String> to &[String], you cannot directly go from Vec<String> to &[&str]. Your choices are:
&[String] Vec<&str> referencing the first Vec, and convert that into a &[&str] As an example of the allocation:
fn usage(_: &[&str]) {} fn main() { let owned = vec![String::new()]; let half_owned: Vec<_> = owned.iter().map(String::as_str).collect(); usage(&half_owned); } 1The conversion required is impossible, however using generics and the AsRef<str> bound as shown in @aSpex's answer you get a slightly more verbose function declaration with the flexibility you were asking for.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With