cross-posted from: https://lemmy.world/post/13508677
Hello All:
I am working on rust problems here. In the second question I solved it by simply adding the return statement for the function to modify. I am not sure what the lesson in ownership to walk away with in this problem. Any guidance?
I don’t think I’d seen that page … how are you find it (this question excluded)?
This is the question I found:
// Don't modify code in main! fn main() { let s1 = String::from("Hello world"); let s2 = take_ownership(s1); println!("{}", s2); } // Only modify the code below! fn take_ownership(s: String) { println!("{}", s); }
As far as I see, there’s no ownership issue that I can see, as
s2
is simply whatever is returned bytake_ownership
which would be straightforwardly owned bys2
throughoutmain
. Meanwhiles
withintake_ownership
is obviously owned within that scope.I’m thinking you’re right and that it’s a poorly built exercise. We could speculate on what they were trying to do … such as trying to print
s1
after it has been moved totake_ownership
… but in the end it’s a relatively simply bit of code and we’d probably be better off moving on … unless I’m missing something of course.If the idea were to print
s1
after thetake_ownership
call, then that’d require a borrow, which would require modifying bothmain
andtake_ownership
, so who knows?Yes that is the question in question. I just was not sure what principle of ownership was in play to answer it since just adding the returns fixed the question. Perhaps it was supposed to be for another problem set and it got posted with these by accident.
Yea, something seems off. Probably best to move on.
If you want a problem … here’s my quick modification to make it about ownership. You can modify both functions. By the sounds of it though you might be on top of this.
fn main() { let s1 = String::from("Hello world"); let _ = take_ownership(s1); println!("{}", s1); } fn take_ownership(s: String) { println!("{}", s); }