If you're new to Rust like me, you're pretty likely to get confused by lifetime. So I'm writing this article to record some confusing points and answers.

I'm not going to illustrate some very basic concepts such as dangling pointer, heap and stack, ownership, etcetera. Please make sure you're familiar with them.

Retrospect

As we all know, lifetime is actually the scope of a value. When a value leaves its scope, it will get dropped. And you've seen the tutorial code lots of times:

fn longest(x: &str, y: &str) -> &str {
    if x.len() > y.len() {
        x
    } else {
        y
    }
}

It's a piece of classic demo code to illustrate lifetime. The code will fail to compile because compiler does not know the relationships between x, y, and return value. So you need to add lifetime annotations manually:

fn longest<'a>(x: &'a str, y: &'a str) -> &'a str {
    if x.len() > y.len() {
        x
    } else {
        y
    }
}

Why compiler needs to know the relationships?

That's the first question in my mind. In other language like TypeScript, we can write the longest function in a very simple form. Because all types we talk about in this article are references while string is not a reference type in JavaScript, we use array instead:

function longest(a: any[], b: any[]): any[] {
    if (a.length > b.length) {
        return a;
    } else {
        return b;
    }
}

It seems that we and TS compiler/ JS engine does not need to know the relationship. But Rust has a very strict mechanism to ensure memory safety:

A value only has one owner, and a value will get dropped when getting out of scope.

Considering a function which takes one or more reference arguments and returns a reference, the returned reference can only either be from arguments, or have a static lifetime. Because if the returned reference points to a value in the function, the value will get dropped at the end of function, which makes the returned reference a dangling pointer (points to a dropped value).

So, let's ignore static lifetime for now. The answer for why compiler needs to know the relationships between arguments (references) and return value (reference), is that the return value must come from arguments, and compiler has to check if it's valid by borrow checker.

Borrow Checker

Rust uses borrow checker to check if the reference is valid. In short, borrow checker checks if the reference lives shorter than the referenced value for the sake of avoiding dangling pointers. Lifetime annotations are actually to assist borrow checker. They tell borrow checker the specific rules to follow and execute the check process.

And I found there is a confusing point in the ubiquitous demo code longest. The &str values usually have a static lifetime by default. That's to say, the code below would get compiled and run successfully:

let str1 = "hello"; // str1 has a static lifetime
let res: &str;

{
    let str2 = "myworld"; // str2 has a static lifetime
    res = longest(str1, str2);
} // str2 will not be dropped here

println!("{}", res); // myworld

It might be a little bit confusing. So I would use &i32 instead of &str to explain in the following part.

Perspective of Function Caller

Let's observe the code at the perspective of caller:

fn main() {
    let x: i32 = 13;
    let res: &i32;
    {
        let y: i32 = 6;
        res = biggest(&x, &y); // Would it be res = &x ? or res = &y ? or res = SomeStruct { x: &x, y:&y }? It's unclear.
    }
}

Imagine you're the Rust compiler. Now, please tell me, do you allow the compilation? You cannot make the decision because you don't know the res is from x, or from y, or both (in a struct type containing both x and y ). Your borrow checker does not know what rules to follow and check. It only knows reference cannot outlive referenced value, and now res is absolutely reference, but who is the referenced value? x or y? Should I check if res outlives x ? Or should I check if res outlives y ? You may choose to check if both x and y outlive res, but what if the biggest function only returns x while y is just a message to be printed? In this case y does not need any lifetime restriction but you add one. It's too arbitrary.

That's why we need lifetime annotations.

fn biggest<'a>(x: &'a i32, y: &'a i32) -> &'a i32 {
    if x > y {
        x
    } else {
        y
    }
}

Now, Rust compiler knows that x , y, return value are all related to lifetime 'a . There are many explanations about the word related like:

x has a lifetime more than 'a , y has a lifetime more than 'a , while return value has a lifetime which is exactly 'a.

That makes sense. And IMO we can memorize it in a simple way:

return value has a lifetime 'a, while x and y should both have a lifetime longer than 'a.

That's what I think the most close explanation to how Rust compiler thinks. Let's consider the following code:

let x: i32 = 13;

let res: &i32;

{
    let y: i32 = 6;
    res = biggest(&x, &y);
}

println!("{}", res)

It would fail to compile and compiler would throw the error:

b does not live long enough

It's because we tell compiler the relationships between x, y, and res by lifetime annotations: both x and y should outlive res. So compiler would check as the rule.

1. If x outlives res? Yes, they have the same scope.
2. If y outlives res? No, lifetime of res is longer than y. Refuse to compile.

Variants

Let's see what will happen if we try some other lifetime annotations and return value.

Variant 1

fn biggest_variant1_incorrect<'a, 'b>(x: &'a i32, y: &'b i32) -> &'a i32 {
    if x > y {
        x
    } else {
        y
    }
}

Check Rules we tell compiler:

1. x should outlive res.

The code would fail to compile with an error message:

error: lifetime may not live long enough
function was supposed to return data with lifetime 'a but it is returning data with lifetime 'b

Please pay attention to the word may not. It means the compiler does not know if y could outlive res . It may be, or it may not be. It's unclear because lifetime 'b has nothing to do with 'a . We only tell compiler x should outlive res, but we may return y. Compiler does not know the rule about y.

Since we need to tell compiler that y must outlive res:

fn biggest_variant1_correct<'a, 'b: 'a>(x: &'a i32, y: &'b i32) -> &'a i32 {
    if x > y {
        x
    } else {
        y
    }
}

'b: 'a means 'b outlives 'a . It looks like the generics. If you say T: Debug, it means generic T must has the trait Debug.

Now compiler knows that 'b outlives 'a and compile it successfully.

Variant 2

fn say_something_and_echo<'a, 'b>(x: &'a i32, y: &'b i32) -> &'a i32 {
    println!("say {}", y);

    y
}

Check Rules we tell compiler:

1. x should outlive res.

The compiler would throw the same error as variant 1, because compiler does not know the rules between real return value y with lifetime 'b and 'a in function signature. We need to add 'b: 'a as well.

Trifles

The same scenario in JS

Let's take a look at the JS code which fails to compile in Rust:

const arr1 = [1, 2, 3];
let res = [];
{
  const arr2 = [1, 2, 3, 4];
  res = longest(arr1, arr2);
} // arr2 does not get dropped
console.log(res); // [1, 2, 3, 4]

JS value will not be freed or dropped after leaving its scope. It's a rule just in Rust. So JS does not need to consider about whatever lifetimes. It uses GC to manage memory. arr2 is referenced by res, so it will not be dropped.

Static lifetime

Values with a static lifetime will survive along with the process. That's why the code would compile successfully:

let str1 = "hello"; // str1 has a static lifetime
let res: &str;

{
    let str2 = "myworld"; // str2 has a static lifetime
    res = longest(str1, str2);
} // str2 will not be dropped here

println!("{}", res); // myworld

Since they live all the time, why we still need lifetime annotations in longest? It's because &str is not always static.

let string1: String = "hello".to_string();
let string1_ref: &str = &string1;

let res: &str;


{
    let string2 = "myworld".to_string();
    let string2_ref: &str = &string2;

    res = longest(&string1, &string2); // error: `string2` does not live long enough
} // string2 gets dropped here, so string2_ref is invalid

println!("{}", res);

In Rust, you can assign a &String to &str like we do above (remember longest takes two &str arguments). In the above case, string2_ref will be invalid after getting out of scope.

Summary

1. Rust uses borrow checker to check if references are valid. But when it meets a function which takes references as input and reference as output, it does not know the rules to check.
2. The purpose of lifetime annotations are to tell borrow checker the rules to follow, so that borrow checker would know what values to check and how to check them.
3. fn function<'a>(input1: &'a type, input2: &'a type) -> &'a type specifies the rule: return value has a lifetime 'a, while both input1 and input2 must have a lifetime longer than (or equal as) 'a.
4. Lifetime annotations will not affect the real lifetime of values. They just help compiler.

In a word, lifetime annotations tell borrow checker the rules to check in some unclear situations, while borrow checker perform the actual checking process