Lifetime error on struct referring to a parametrized function











up vote
5
down vote

favorite












If I write the code below, I get error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough.



struct Function<T> {
f: fn() -> T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This fixes the error:



struct FunctionRef<'f, T: 'f> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


However, as far as I can tell, T is not bound on the lifetime 'f. Indeed, T is a new object created when the function of type fn () -> T is run.



Where am I missing something?










share|improve this question
























  • This is effectively the same question as The compiler suggests I add a 'static lifetime because the parameter type may not live long enough, but I don't think that's what I want: T: 'f does not mean that every T lives for at least 'f, it means that T cannot contain any references with a lifetime less than 'f.
    – trentcl
    Nov 20 at 12:49






  • 1




    The only lifetime bound that makes sense here is using T: 'static. Since the function pointed to by f does not take any arguments, it can't really return a reference with any other lifetime than the static lifetime. (The situation would be different if you changed the type of f to a generic type F: Fn() -> T, since this would also allow for closures, which can return captured references that have different lifetimes.)
    – Sven Marnach
    Nov 21 at 9:28















up vote
5
down vote

favorite












If I write the code below, I get error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough.



struct Function<T> {
f: fn() -> T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This fixes the error:



struct FunctionRef<'f, T: 'f> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


However, as far as I can tell, T is not bound on the lifetime 'f. Indeed, T is a new object created when the function of type fn () -> T is run.



Where am I missing something?










share|improve this question
























  • This is effectively the same question as The compiler suggests I add a 'static lifetime because the parameter type may not live long enough, but I don't think that's what I want: T: 'f does not mean that every T lives for at least 'f, it means that T cannot contain any references with a lifetime less than 'f.
    – trentcl
    Nov 20 at 12:49






  • 1




    The only lifetime bound that makes sense here is using T: 'static. Since the function pointed to by f does not take any arguments, it can't really return a reference with any other lifetime than the static lifetime. (The situation would be different if you changed the type of f to a generic type F: Fn() -> T, since this would also allow for closures, which can return captured references that have different lifetimes.)
    – Sven Marnach
    Nov 21 at 9:28













up vote
5
down vote

favorite









up vote
5
down vote

favorite











If I write the code below, I get error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough.



struct Function<T> {
f: fn() -> T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This fixes the error:



struct FunctionRef<'f, T: 'f> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


However, as far as I can tell, T is not bound on the lifetime 'f. Indeed, T is a new object created when the function of type fn () -> T is run.



Where am I missing something?










share|improve this question















If I write the code below, I get error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough.



struct Function<T> {
f: fn() -> T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This fixes the error:



struct FunctionRef<'f, T: 'f> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


However, as far as I can tell, T is not bound on the lifetime 'f. Indeed, T is a new object created when the function of type fn () -> T is run.



Where am I missing something?







rust






share|improve this question















share|improve this question













share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited Nov 20 at 7:16









hellow

4,37932042




4,37932042










asked Nov 20 at 5:25









Olivier

37527




37527












  • This is effectively the same question as The compiler suggests I add a 'static lifetime because the parameter type may not live long enough, but I don't think that's what I want: T: 'f does not mean that every T lives for at least 'f, it means that T cannot contain any references with a lifetime less than 'f.
    – trentcl
    Nov 20 at 12:49






  • 1




    The only lifetime bound that makes sense here is using T: 'static. Since the function pointed to by f does not take any arguments, it can't really return a reference with any other lifetime than the static lifetime. (The situation would be different if you changed the type of f to a generic type F: Fn() -> T, since this would also allow for closures, which can return captured references that have different lifetimes.)
    – Sven Marnach
    Nov 21 at 9:28


















  • This is effectively the same question as The compiler suggests I add a 'static lifetime because the parameter type may not live long enough, but I don't think that's what I want: T: 'f does not mean that every T lives for at least 'f, it means that T cannot contain any references with a lifetime less than 'f.
    – trentcl
    Nov 20 at 12:49






  • 1




    The only lifetime bound that makes sense here is using T: 'static. Since the function pointed to by f does not take any arguments, it can't really return a reference with any other lifetime than the static lifetime. (The situation would be different if you changed the type of f to a generic type F: Fn() -> T, since this would also allow for closures, which can return captured references that have different lifetimes.)
    – Sven Marnach
    Nov 21 at 9:28
















This is effectively the same question as The compiler suggests I add a 'static lifetime because the parameter type may not live long enough, but I don't think that's what I want: T: 'f does not mean that every T lives for at least 'f, it means that T cannot contain any references with a lifetime less than 'f.
– trentcl
Nov 20 at 12:49




This is effectively the same question as The compiler suggests I add a 'static lifetime because the parameter type may not live long enough, but I don't think that's what I want: T: 'f does not mean that every T lives for at least 'f, it means that T cannot contain any references with a lifetime less than 'f.
– trentcl
Nov 20 at 12:49




1




1




The only lifetime bound that makes sense here is using T: 'static. Since the function pointed to by f does not take any arguments, it can't really return a reference with any other lifetime than the static lifetime. (The situation would be different if you changed the type of f to a generic type F: Fn() -> T, since this would also allow for closures, which can return captured references that have different lifetimes.)
– Sven Marnach
Nov 21 at 9:28




The only lifetime bound that makes sense here is using T: 'static. Since the function pointed to by f does not take any arguments, it can't really return a reference with any other lifetime than the static lifetime. (The situation would be different if you changed the type of f to a generic type F: Fn() -> T, since this would also allow for closures, which can return captured references that have different lifetimes.)
– Sven Marnach
Nov 21 at 9:28












1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Short answer: You need T: 'f because T may contains field that hold references and fn() -> T is covariant over T.



To simplify things may help to understand ...



For a moment substitute fn() -> T with T, because for me it is more simple to explain what it is happening with lifetimes.
See the Note below why with this substitution does not change the lifetime related error.



struct Function<T> {
f: T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This lead to the same error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough error.



FunctionRef instances cannot outlive the reference it holds in f field:
you declare a generic lifetime parameter 'f inside angle brackets and then you use 'f as an annotation
inside the struct body. See also the book.



But FunctionRef::f depends on a type parameter T. The explicit constraint T: 'f guarantee that T instances
does not outlive references holded by T and FunctionRef does not outlive FunctionRef::f.



If it can help to understand substitute the generic T with a specific Foo type:



struct Foo<'a> {
n: &'a i32,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, 'a: 'f> {
f: &'f Foo<'a>,
}


You need to constraint lifetime 'a to be valid at least as long as 'f lifetime, otherwise memory safety rules would be violated.



Note



I have considered the case f: T equivalent of f: fn() -> T because such type constructor is covariant over T.



To grasp the meaning of fn() -> T is covariant over T, consider this struct:



struct Foo<'a> {
v: &'a i32
}


In this case is safe to assign to v a value with a lifetime "bigger" than 'a, for example:



let ref_value: &'static i32 =  &100;
let foo = Foo { v: ref_value};


Now the same holds for the following struct:



struct Function<'a> {
f: fn() -> &'a i32
}


The field f expects a function that returns a &i32 that outlive 'a.



In this case it is safe to pass a function that returns a &i32 with a "bigger" lifetime, for example:



fn my_f() -> &'static i32 {
&100
}

fn main() {
let foo = Function { f: my_f};
}


There is quite a lot of type theory behind this, see the nomicom for a detailed explanation.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
    – Olivier
    Nov 20 at 9:54










  • I see your doubt, I've added a note.
    – attdona
    Nov 20 at 10:17











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',
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%2f53386717%2flifetime-error-on-struct-referring-to-a-parametrized-function%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Short answer: You need T: 'f because T may contains field that hold references and fn() -> T is covariant over T.



To simplify things may help to understand ...



For a moment substitute fn() -> T with T, because for me it is more simple to explain what it is happening with lifetimes.
See the Note below why with this substitution does not change the lifetime related error.



struct Function<T> {
f: T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This lead to the same error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough error.



FunctionRef instances cannot outlive the reference it holds in f field:
you declare a generic lifetime parameter 'f inside angle brackets and then you use 'f as an annotation
inside the struct body. See also the book.



But FunctionRef::f depends on a type parameter T. The explicit constraint T: 'f guarantee that T instances
does not outlive references holded by T and FunctionRef does not outlive FunctionRef::f.



If it can help to understand substitute the generic T with a specific Foo type:



struct Foo<'a> {
n: &'a i32,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, 'a: 'f> {
f: &'f Foo<'a>,
}


You need to constraint lifetime 'a to be valid at least as long as 'f lifetime, otherwise memory safety rules would be violated.



Note



I have considered the case f: T equivalent of f: fn() -> T because such type constructor is covariant over T.



To grasp the meaning of fn() -> T is covariant over T, consider this struct:



struct Foo<'a> {
v: &'a i32
}


In this case is safe to assign to v a value with a lifetime "bigger" than 'a, for example:



let ref_value: &'static i32 =  &100;
let foo = Foo { v: ref_value};


Now the same holds for the following struct:



struct Function<'a> {
f: fn() -> &'a i32
}


The field f expects a function that returns a &i32 that outlive 'a.



In this case it is safe to pass a function that returns a &i32 with a "bigger" lifetime, for example:



fn my_f() -> &'static i32 {
&100
}

fn main() {
let foo = Function { f: my_f};
}


There is quite a lot of type theory behind this, see the nomicom for a detailed explanation.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
    – Olivier
    Nov 20 at 9:54










  • I see your doubt, I've added a note.
    – attdona
    Nov 20 at 10:17















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










Short answer: You need T: 'f because T may contains field that hold references and fn() -> T is covariant over T.



To simplify things may help to understand ...



For a moment substitute fn() -> T with T, because for me it is more simple to explain what it is happening with lifetimes.
See the Note below why with this substitution does not change the lifetime related error.



struct Function<T> {
f: T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This lead to the same error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough error.



FunctionRef instances cannot outlive the reference it holds in f field:
you declare a generic lifetime parameter 'f inside angle brackets and then you use 'f as an annotation
inside the struct body. See also the book.



But FunctionRef::f depends on a type parameter T. The explicit constraint T: 'f guarantee that T instances
does not outlive references holded by T and FunctionRef does not outlive FunctionRef::f.



If it can help to understand substitute the generic T with a specific Foo type:



struct Foo<'a> {
n: &'a i32,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, 'a: 'f> {
f: &'f Foo<'a>,
}


You need to constraint lifetime 'a to be valid at least as long as 'f lifetime, otherwise memory safety rules would be violated.



Note



I have considered the case f: T equivalent of f: fn() -> T because such type constructor is covariant over T.



To grasp the meaning of fn() -> T is covariant over T, consider this struct:



struct Foo<'a> {
v: &'a i32
}


In this case is safe to assign to v a value with a lifetime "bigger" than 'a, for example:



let ref_value: &'static i32 =  &100;
let foo = Foo { v: ref_value};


Now the same holds for the following struct:



struct Function<'a> {
f: fn() -> &'a i32
}


The field f expects a function that returns a &i32 that outlive 'a.



In this case it is safe to pass a function that returns a &i32 with a "bigger" lifetime, for example:



fn my_f() -> &'static i32 {
&100
}

fn main() {
let foo = Function { f: my_f};
}


There is quite a lot of type theory behind this, see the nomicom for a detailed explanation.






share|improve this answer























  • Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
    – Olivier
    Nov 20 at 9:54










  • I see your doubt, I've added a note.
    – attdona
    Nov 20 at 10:17













up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






Short answer: You need T: 'f because T may contains field that hold references and fn() -> T is covariant over T.



To simplify things may help to understand ...



For a moment substitute fn() -> T with T, because for me it is more simple to explain what it is happening with lifetimes.
See the Note below why with this substitution does not change the lifetime related error.



struct Function<T> {
f: T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This lead to the same error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough error.



FunctionRef instances cannot outlive the reference it holds in f field:
you declare a generic lifetime parameter 'f inside angle brackets and then you use 'f as an annotation
inside the struct body. See also the book.



But FunctionRef::f depends on a type parameter T. The explicit constraint T: 'f guarantee that T instances
does not outlive references holded by T and FunctionRef does not outlive FunctionRef::f.



If it can help to understand substitute the generic T with a specific Foo type:



struct Foo<'a> {
n: &'a i32,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, 'a: 'f> {
f: &'f Foo<'a>,
}


You need to constraint lifetime 'a to be valid at least as long as 'f lifetime, otherwise memory safety rules would be violated.



Note



I have considered the case f: T equivalent of f: fn() -> T because such type constructor is covariant over T.



To grasp the meaning of fn() -> T is covariant over T, consider this struct:



struct Foo<'a> {
v: &'a i32
}


In this case is safe to assign to v a value with a lifetime "bigger" than 'a, for example:



let ref_value: &'static i32 =  &100;
let foo = Foo { v: ref_value};


Now the same holds for the following struct:



struct Function<'a> {
f: fn() -> &'a i32
}


The field f expects a function that returns a &i32 that outlive 'a.



In this case it is safe to pass a function that returns a &i32 with a "bigger" lifetime, for example:



fn my_f() -> &'static i32 {
&100
}

fn main() {
let foo = Function { f: my_f};
}


There is quite a lot of type theory behind this, see the nomicom for a detailed explanation.






share|improve this answer














Short answer: You need T: 'f because T may contains field that hold references and fn() -> T is covariant over T.



To simplify things may help to understand ...



For a moment substitute fn() -> T with T, because for me it is more simple to explain what it is happening with lifetimes.
See the Note below why with this substitution does not change the lifetime related error.



struct Function<T> {
f: T,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, T> {
f: &'f Function<T>,
}


This lead to the same error[E0309]: the parameter type 'T' may not live long enough error.



FunctionRef instances cannot outlive the reference it holds in f field:
you declare a generic lifetime parameter 'f inside angle brackets and then you use 'f as an annotation
inside the struct body. See also the book.



But FunctionRef::f depends on a type parameter T. The explicit constraint T: 'f guarantee that T instances
does not outlive references holded by T and FunctionRef does not outlive FunctionRef::f.



If it can help to understand substitute the generic T with a specific Foo type:



struct Foo<'a> {
n: &'a i32,
}

struct FunctionRef<'f, 'a: 'f> {
f: &'f Foo<'a>,
}


You need to constraint lifetime 'a to be valid at least as long as 'f lifetime, otherwise memory safety rules would be violated.



Note



I have considered the case f: T equivalent of f: fn() -> T because such type constructor is covariant over T.



To grasp the meaning of fn() -> T is covariant over T, consider this struct:



struct Foo<'a> {
v: &'a i32
}


In this case is safe to assign to v a value with a lifetime "bigger" than 'a, for example:



let ref_value: &'static i32 =  &100;
let foo = Foo { v: ref_value};


Now the same holds for the following struct:



struct Function<'a> {
f: fn() -> &'a i32
}


The field f expects a function that returns a &i32 that outlive 'a.



In this case it is safe to pass a function that returns a &i32 with a "bigger" lifetime, for example:



fn my_f() -> &'static i32 {
&100
}

fn main() {
let foo = Function { f: my_f};
}


There is quite a lot of type theory behind this, see the nomicom for a detailed explanation.







share|improve this answer














share|improve this answer



share|improve this answer








edited Nov 21 at 6:55

























answered Nov 20 at 9:41









attdona

2,93411120




2,93411120












  • Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
    – Olivier
    Nov 20 at 9:54










  • I see your doubt, I've added a note.
    – attdona
    Nov 20 at 10:17


















  • Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
    – Olivier
    Nov 20 at 9:54










  • I see your doubt, I've added a note.
    – attdona
    Nov 20 at 10:17
















Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
– Olivier
Nov 20 at 9:54




Thank you. I understand your statement and I agree with it. However it does not answer my question. In the case you are showing I agree that T should be live longer than the lifetime'f. However, I still do not understand why the statement "T should be live longer than the lifetime`'f" is true for the case I presented in my question. You say "This error has nothing to do with the fact that Function::f is a function". To this I want to ask "Why?". Sorry if I am dumb.
– Olivier
Nov 20 at 9:54












I see your doubt, I've added a note.
– attdona
Nov 20 at 10:17




I see your doubt, I've added a note.
– attdona
Nov 20 at 10:17


















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%2f53386717%2flifetime-error-on-struct-referring-to-a-parametrized-function%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

Wiesbaden

Marschland

Dieringhausen