Use borrowed types for arguments
Description
Using a target of a deref coercion can increase the flexibility of your code when you are deciding which argument type to use for a function argument. In this way, the function will accept more input types.
This is not limited to slice-able or fat pointer types. In fact, you should
always prefer using the borrowed type over borrowing the owned type.
Such as &str over &String, &[T] over &Vec<T>, or &T over &Box<T>.
Using borrowed types you can avoid layers of indirection for those instances
where the owned type already provides a layer of indirection. For instance, a
String has a layer of indirection, so a &String will have two layers of
indirection. We can avoid this by using &str instead, and letting &String
coerce to a &str whenever the function is invoked.
Example
For this example, we will illustrate some differences for using &String as a
function argument versus using a &str, but the ideas apply as well to using
&Vec<T> versus using a &[T] or using a &Box<T> versus a &T.
Consider an example where we wish to determine if a word contains three consecutive vowels. We don’t need to own the string to determine this, so we will take a reference.
The code might look something like this:
fn three_vowels(word: &String) -> bool { let mut vowel_count = 0; for c in word.chars() { match c { 'a' | 'e' | 'i' | 'o' | 'u' => { vowel_count += 1; if vowel_count >= 3 { return true; } } _ => vowel_count = 0, } } false } fn main() { let ferris = "Ferris".to_string(); let curious = "Curious".to_string(); println!("{}: {}", ferris, three_vowels(&ferris)); println!("{}: {}", curious, three_vowels(&curious)); // This works fine, but the following two lines would fail: // println!("Ferris: {}", three_vowels("Ferris")); // println!("Curious: {}", three_vowels("Curious")); }
This works fine because we are passing a &String type as a parameter. If we
remove the comments on the last two lines, the example will fail. This is
because a &str type will not coerce to a &String type. We can fix this by
simply modifying the type for our argument.
For instance, if we change our function declaration to:
fn three_vowels(word: &str) -> bool {
then both versions will compile and print the same output.
Ferris: false
Curious: true
But wait, that’s not all! There is more to this story. It’s likely that you may
say to yourself: that doesn’t matter, I will never be using a &'static str as
an input anyways (as we did when we used "Ferris"). Even ignoring this special
example, you may still find that using &str will give you more flexibility
than using a &String.
Let’s now take an example where someone gives us a sentence, and we want to determine if any of the words in the sentence contain three consecutive vowels. We probably should make use of the function we have already defined and simply feed in each word from the sentence.
An example of this could look like this:
fn three_vowels(word: &str) -> bool { let mut vowel_count = 0; for c in word.chars() { match c { 'a' | 'e' | 'i' | 'o' | 'u' => { vowel_count += 1; if vowel_count >= 3 { return true; } } _ => vowel_count = 0, } } false } fn main() { let sentence_string = "Once upon a time, there was a friendly curious crab named Ferris".to_string(); for word in sentence_string.split(' ') { if three_vowels(word) { println!("{word} has three consecutive vowels!"); } } }
Running this example using our function declared with an argument type &str
will yield
curious has three consecutive vowels!
However, this example will not run when our function is declared with an
argument type &String. This is because string slices are a &str and not a
&String which would require an allocation to be converted to &String which
is not implicit, whereas converting from String to &str is cheap and
implicit.
See also
- Rust Language Reference on Type Coercions
 - For more discussion on how to handle 
Stringand&strsee this blog series (2015) by Herman J. Radtke III - Steve Klabnik’s Blogpost on ‘When should I use String vs &str?’