Closures: Anonymous Functions that Can Capture Their Environment
Rust’s closures are anonymous functions you can save in a variable or pass as arguments to other functions. You can create the closure in one place, and then call the closure to evaluate it in a different context. Unlike functions, closures can capture values from the scope in which they’re called. We’ll demonstrate how these closure features allow for code reuse and behavior customization.
Creating an Abstraction of Behavior with Closures
Let’s work on an example of a situation in which it’s useful to store a closure to be executed at a later time. Along the way, we’ll talk about the syntax of closures, type inference, and traits.
Consider this hypothetical situation: we work at a startup that’s making an app to generate custom exercise workout plans. The backend is written in Rust, and the algorithm that generates the workout plan takes into account many different factors, such as the app user’s age, body mass index, preferences, recent workouts, and an intensity number they specify. The actual algorithm used isn’t important in this example; what’s important is that this calculation takes a few seconds. We want to call this algorithm only when we need to and only call it once, so we don’t make the user wait more than necessary.
We’ll simulate calling this hypothetical algorithm with the
simulated_expensive_calculation
function shown in Listing 13-1, which will
print calculating slowly...
, wait for two seconds, and then return whatever
number we passed in:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { use std::thread; use std::time::Duration; fn simulated_expensive_calculation(intensity: u32) -> u32 { println!("calculating slowly..."); thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); intensity } #}
Next is the main
function that contains the parts of the workout app
important for this example. This function represents the code that the app will
call when a user asks for a workout plan. Because the interaction with the
app’s frontend isn’t relevant to the use of closures, we’ll hardcode values
representing inputs to our program and print the outputs.
The required inputs are:
- An intensity number from the user, which is specified when they request a workout to indicate whether they want a low-intensity workout or a high-intensity workout.
- A random number that will generate some variety in the workout plans.
The output will be the recommended workout plan. Listing 13-2 shows the main
function we’ll use:
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() { let simulated_user_specified_value = 10; let simulated_random_number = 7; generate_workout( simulated_user_specified_value, simulated_random_number ); } # fn generate_workout(intensity: u32, random_number: u32) {}
We’ve hardcoded the variable simulated_user_specified_value
to 10 and the
variable simulated_random_number
to 7 for simplicity’s sake; in an actual
program, we’d get the intensity number from the app frontend and we’d use the
rand
crate to generate a random number, as we did in the Guessing Game
example in Chapter 2. The main
function calls a generate_workout
function
with the simulated input values.
Now that we have the context, let’s get to the algorithm. The
generate_workout
function in Listing 13-3 contains the business logic of the
app that we’re most concerned with in this example. The rest of the code
changes in this example will be made to this function:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # use std::thread; # use std::time::Duration; # # fn simulated_expensive_calculation(num: u32) -> u32 { # println!("calculating slowly..."); # thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); # num # } # fn generate_workout(intensity: u32, random_number: u32) { if intensity < 25 { println!( "Today, do {} pushups!", simulated_expensive_calculation(intensity) ); println!( "Next, do {} situps!", simulated_expensive_calculation(intensity) ); } else { if random_number == 3 { println!("Take a break today! Remember to stay hydrated!"); } else { println!( "Today, run for {} minutes!", simulated_expensive_calculation(intensity) ); } } } #}
The code in Listing 13-3 has multiple calls to the slow calculation function.
The first if
block calls simulated_expensive_calculation
twice, the if
inside the outer else
doesn’t call it at all, and the code inside the
second else
case calls it once.
The desired behavior of the generate_workout
function is to first check
whether the user wants a low-intensity workout (indicated by a number less
than 25) or a high-intensity workout (a number of 25 or greater).
Low-intensity workout plans will recommend a number of push-ups and sit-ups based on the complex algorithm we’re simulating.
If the user wants a high-intensity workout, there’s some additional logic: if the value of the random number generated by the app happens to be 3, the app will recommend a break and hydration. If not, the user will get a number of minutes of running based on the complex algorithm.
The data science team has let us know that we’ll have to make some changes to
the way we call the algorithm in the future. To simplify the update when those
changes happen, we want to refactor this code so it calls the
simulated_expensive_calculation
function only once. We also want to cut the
place where we’re currently unnecessarily calling the function twice without
adding any other calls to that function in the process. That is, we don’t want
to call it if the result isn’t needed, and we still want to call it only once.
Refactoring Using Functions
We could restructure the workout program in many ways. First, we’ll try
extracting the duplicated call to the expensive_calculation
function into
a variable, as shown in Listing 13-4:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # use std::thread; # use std::time::Duration; # # fn simulated_expensive_calculation(num: u32) -> u32 { # println!("calculating slowly..."); # thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); # num # } # fn generate_workout(intensity: u32, random_number: u32) { let expensive_result = simulated_expensive_calculation(intensity); if intensity < 25 { println!( "Today, do {} pushups!", expensive_result ); println!( "Next, do {} situps!", expensive_result ); } else { if random_number == 3 { println!("Take a break today! Remember to stay hydrated!"); } else { println!( "Today, run for {} minutes!", expensive_result ); } } } #}
This change unifies all the calls to simulated_expensive_calculation
and
solves the problem of the first if
block unnecessarily calling the function
twice. Unfortunately, we’re now calling this function and waiting for the
result in all cases, which includes the inner if
block that doesn’t use the
result value at all.
We want to define code in one place in our program, but only execute that code where we actually need the result. This is a use case for closures!
Refactoring with Closures to Store Code
Instead of always calling the simulated_expensive_calculation
function before
the if
blocks, we can define a closure and store the closure in a variable
rather than storing the result, as shown in Listing 13-5. We can actually move
the whole body of simulated_expensive_calculation
within the closure we’re
introducing here:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # use std::thread; # use std::time::Duration; # let expensive_closure = |num| { println!("calculating slowly..."); thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); num }; # expensive_closure(5); #}
The closure definition comes after the =
to assign it to the variable
expensive_closure
. To define a closure, we start with a pair of vertical
pipes (|
), inside which we specify the parameters to the closure; this syntax
was chosen because of its similarity to closure definitions in Smalltalk and
Ruby. This closure has one parameter named num
: if we had more than one
parameter, we would separate them with commas, like |param1, param2|
.
After the parameters, we place curly brackets that hold the body of the
closure—these are optional if the closure body is a single expression. The end
of the closure, after the curly brackets, needs a semicolon to complete the
let
statement. The value returned from the last line in the closure body
(num
) will be the value returned from the closure when it’s called, because
that line doesn’t end in a semicolon; just like in function bodies.
Note that this let
statement means expensive_closure
contains the
definition of an anonymous function, not the resulting value of calling the
anonymous function. Recall that we’re using a closure because we want to define
the code to call at one point, store that code, and call it at a later point;
the code we want to call is now stored in expensive_closure
.
With the closure defined, we can change the code in the if
blocks to call the
closure to execute the code and get the resulting value. We call a closure like
we do a function: we specify the variable name that holds the closure
definition and follow it with parentheses containing the argument values we
want to use, as shown in Listing 13-6:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # use std::thread; # use std::time::Duration; # fn generate_workout(intensity: u32, random_number: u32) { let expensive_closure = |num| { println!("calculating slowly..."); thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); num }; if intensity < 25 { println!( "Today, do {} pushups!", expensive_closure(intensity) ); println!( "Next, do {} situps!", expensive_closure(intensity) ); } else { if random_number == 3 { println!("Take a break today! Remember to stay hydrated!"); } else { println!( "Today, run for {} minutes!", expensive_closure(intensity) ); } } } #}
Now the expensive calculation is called in only one place, and we’re only executing that code where we need the results.
However, we’ve reintroduced one of the problems from Listing 13-3: we’re still
calling the closure twice in the first if
block, which will call the
expensive code twice and make the user wait twice as long as they need to. We
could fix this problem by creating a variable local to that if
block to hold
the result of calling the closure, but closures provide us with another
solution. We’ll talk about that solution in a bit. But first let’s talk about
why there aren’t type annotations in the closure definition and the traits
involved with closures.
Closure Type Inference and Annotation
Closures don’t require you to annotate the types of the parameters or the
return value like fn
functions do. Type annotations are required on functions
because they’re part of an explicit interface exposed to your users. Defining
this interface rigidly is important for ensuring that everyone agrees on what
types of values a function uses and returns. But closures aren’t used in an
exposed interface like this: they’re stored in variables and used without
naming them and exposing them to users of our library.
Additionally, closures are usually short and only relevant within a narrow context rather than in any arbitrary scenario. Within these limited contexts, the compiler is reliably able to infer the types of the parameters and return type, similar to how it’s able to infer the types of most variables.
Making programmers annotate the types in these small, anonymous functions would be annoying and largely redundant with the information the compiler already has available.
Like variables, we can add type annotations if we want to increase explicitness and clarity at the cost of being more verbose than is strictly necessary; annotating the types for the closure we defined in Listing 13-4 would look like the definition shown in Listing 13-7:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # use std::thread; # use std::time::Duration; # let expensive_closure = |num: u32| -> u32 { println!("calculating slowly..."); thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); num }; #}
The syntax of closures and functions looks more similar with type annotations. The following is a vertical comparison of the syntax for the definition of a function that adds one to its parameter, and a closure that has the same behavior. We’ve added some spaces to line up the relevant parts. This illustrates how closure syntax is similar to function syntax except for the use of pipes and the amount of syntax that is optional:
fn add_one_v1 (x: u32) -> u32 { x + 1 }
let add_one_v2 = |x: u32| -> u32 { x + 1 };
let add_one_v3 = |x| { x + 1 };
let add_one_v4 = |x| x + 1 ;
The first line shows a function definition, and the second line shows a fully annotated closure definition. The third line removes the type annotations from the closure definition, and the fourth line removes the brackets that are optional, because the closure body has only one expression. These are all valid definitions that will produce the same behavior when they’re called.
Closure definitions will have one concrete type inferred for each of their
parameters and for their return value. For instance, Listing 13-8 shows the
definition of a short closure that just returns the value it receives as a
parameter. This closure isn’t very useful except for the purposes of this
example. Note that we haven’t added any type annotations to the definition: if
we then try to call the closure twice, using a String
as an argument the
first time and a u32
the second time, we’ll get an error:
Filename: src/main.rs
let example_closure = |x| x;
let s = example_closure(String::from("hello"));
let n = example_closure(5);
The compiler gives us this error:
error[E0308]: mismatched types
--> src/main.rs
|
| let n = example_closure(5);
| ^ expected struct `std::string::String`, found
integral variable
|
= note: expected type `std::string::String`
found type `{integer}`
The first time we call example_closure
with the String
value, the compiler
infers the type of x
and the return type of the closure to be String
. Those
types are then locked in to the closure in example_closure
, and we get a type
error if we try to use a different type with the same closure.
Storing Closures Using Generic Parameters and the Fn
Traits
Let’s return to our workout generation app. In Listing 13-6, our code was still calling the expensive calculation closure more times than it needed to. One option to solve this issue is to save the result of the expensive closure in a variable for reuse and use the variable instead in each place we need the result instead of calling the closure again. However, this method could result in a lot of repeated code.
Fortunately, another solution is available to us. We can create a struct that will hold the closure and the resulting value of calling the closure. The struct will only execute the closure if we need the resulting value, and it will cache the resulting value so the rest of our code doesn’t have to be responsible for saving and reusing the result. You may know this pattern as memoization or lazy evaluation.
To make a struct that holds a closure, we need to specify the type of the closure, because a struct definition needs to know the types of each of its fields. Each closure instance has its own unique anonymous type: that is, even if two closures have the same signature, their types are still considered different. To define structs, enums, or function parameters that use closures, we use generics and trait bounds, as we discussed in Chapter 10.
The Fn
traits are provided by the standard library. All closures implement
one of the traits: Fn
, FnMut
, or FnOnce
. We’ll discuss the difference
between these traits in the next section on capturing the environment; in this
example, we can use the Fn
trait.
We add types to the Fn
trait bound to represent the types of the parameters
and return values the closures must have to match this trait bound. In this
case, our closure has a parameter of type u32
and returns a u32
, so the
trait bound we specify is Fn(u32) -> u32
.
Listing 13-9 shows the definition of the Cacher
struct that holds a closure
and an optional result value:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { struct Cacher<T> where T: Fn(u32) -> u32 { calculation: T, value: Option<u32>, } #}
The Cacher
struct has a calculation
field of the generic type T
. The
trait bounds on T
specify that it’s a closure by using the Fn
trait. Any
closure we want to store in the calculation
field must have one u32
parameter (specified within the parentheses after Fn
) and must return a
u32
(specified after the ->
).
Note: Functions implement all three of the
Fn
traits too. If what we want to do doesn’t require capturing a value from the environment, we can use a function rather than a closure where we need something that implements anFn
trait.
The value
field is of type Option<u32>
. Before we execute the closure,
value
will be None
. When code using a Cacher
asks for the result of the
closure, the Cacher
will execute the closure at that time and store the
result within a Some
variant in the value
field. Then if the code asks for
the result of the closure again, instead of executing the closure again, the
Cacher
will return the result held in the Some
variant.
The logic around the value
field we’ve just described is defined in Listing
13-10:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # struct Cacher<T> # where T: Fn(u32) -> u32 # { # calculation: T, # value: Option<u32>, # } # impl<T> Cacher<T> where T: Fn(u32) -> u32 { fn new(calculation: T) -> Cacher<T> { Cacher { calculation, value: None, } } fn value(&mut self, arg: u32) -> u32 { match self.value { Some(v) => v, None => { let v = (self.calculation)(arg); self.value = Some(v); v }, } } } #}
We want Cacher
to manage the struct fields’ values rather than letting the
calling code potentially change the values in these fields directly, so these
fields are private.
The Cacher::new
function takes a generic parameter T
, which we’ve defined
as having the same trait bound as the Cacher
struct. Then Cacher::new
returns a Cacher
instance that holds the closure specified in the
calculation
field and a None
value in the value
field, because we haven’t
executed the closure yet.
When the calling code wants the result of evaluating the closure, instead of
calling the closure directly, it will call the value
method. This method
checks whether we already have a resulting value in self.value
in a Some
;
if we do, it returns the value within the Some
without executing the closure
again.
If self.value
is None
, we call the closure stored in self.calculation
,
save the result in self.value
for future use, and return the value as well.
Listing 13-11 shows how we can use this Cacher
struct in the
generate_workout
function from Listing 13-6:
Filename: src/main.rs
# #![allow(unused_variables)] #fn main() { # use std::thread; # use std::time::Duration; # # struct Cacher<T> # where T: Fn(u32) -> u32 # { # calculation: T, # value: Option<u32>, # } # # impl<T> Cacher<T> # where T: Fn(u32) -> u32 # { # fn new(calculation: T) -> Cacher<T> { # Cacher { # calculation, # value: None, # } # } # # fn value(&mut self, arg: u32) -> u32 { # match self.value { # Some(v) => v, # None => { # let v = (self.calculation)(arg); # self.value = Some(v); # v # }, # } # } # } # fn generate_workout(intensity: u32, random_number: u32) { let mut expensive_result = Cacher::new(|num| { println!("calculating slowly..."); thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(2)); num }); if intensity < 25 { println!( "Today, do {} pushups!", expensive_result.value(intensity) ); println!( "Next, do {} situps!", expensive_result.value(intensity) ); } else { if random_number == 3 { println!("Take a break today! Remember to stay hydrated!"); } else { println!( "Today, run for {} minutes!", expensive_result.value(intensity) ); } } } #}
Instead of saving the closure in a variable directly, we save a new instance of
Cacher
that holds the closure. Then, in each place we want the result, we
call the value
method on the Cacher
instance. We can call the value
method as many times as we want, or not call it at all, and the expensive
calculation will be run a maximum of once.
Try running this program with the main
function from Listing 13-2. Change the
values in the simulated_user_specified_value
and simulated_random_number
variables to verify that in all the cases in the various if
and else
blocks, calculating slowly...
only appears once and only when needed. The
Cacher
takes care of the logic necessary to ensure we aren’t calling the
expensive calculation more than we need to, so generate_workout
can focus on
the business logic.
Limitations of the Cacher
Implementation
Caching values is a generally useful behavior that we might want to use in
other parts of our code with different closures. However, there are two
problems with the current implementation of Cacher
that would make reusing it
in different contexts difficult.
The first problem is that a Cacher
instance assumes it will always get the
same value for the parameter arg
to the value
method. That is, this test of
Cacher
will fail:
#[test]
fn call_with_different_values() {
let mut c = Cacher::new(|a| a);
let v1 = c.value(1);
let v2 = c.value(2);
assert_eq!(v2, 2);
}
This test creates a new Cacher
instance with a closure that returns the value
passed into it. We call the value
method on this Cacher
instance with an
arg
value of 1 and then an arg
value of 2, and we expect that the call to
value
with the arg
value of 2 should return 2.
Run this test with the Cacher
implementation in Listing 13-9 and Listing
13-10, and the test will fail on the assert_eq!
with this message:
thread 'call_with_different_values' panicked at 'assertion failed: `(left == right)`
left: `1`,
right: `2`', src/main.rs
The problem is that the first time we called c.value
with 1, the Cacher
instance saved Some(1)
in self.value
. Thereafter, no matter what we pass in
to the value
method, it will always return 1.
Try modifying Cacher
to hold a hash map rather than a single value. The keys
of the hash map will be the arg
values that are passed in, and the values of
the hash map will be the result of calling the closure on that key. Instead of
looking at whether self.value
directly has a Some
or a None
value, the
value
function will look up the arg
in the hash map and return the value if
it’s present. If it’s not present, the Cacher
will call the closure and save
the resulting value in the hash map associated with its arg
value.
The second problem with the current Cacher
implementation is that it only
accepts closures that take one parameter of type u32
and return a u32
. We
might want to cache the results of closures that take a string slice and return
usize
values, for example. To fix this issue, try introducing more generic
parameters to increase the flexibility of the Cacher
functionality.
Capturing the Environment with Closures
In the workout generator example, we only used closures as inline anonymous functions. However, closures have an additional capability that functions don’t have: they can capture their environment and access variables from the scope in which they’re defined.
Listing 13-12 has an example of a closure stored in the variable equal_to_x
that uses the variable x
from the closure’s surrounding environment:
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() { let x = 4; let equal_to_x = |z| z == x; let y = 4; assert!(equal_to_x(y)); }
Here, even though x
is not one of the parameters of equal_to_x
, the
equal_to_x
closure is allowed to use the x
variable that’s defined in the
same scope that equal_to_x
is defined in.
We can’t do the same with functions; if we try with the following example, our code won’t compile:
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() {
let x = 4;
fn equal_to_x(z: i32) -> bool { z == x }
let y = 4;
assert!(equal_to_x(y));
}
We get an error:
error[E0434]: can't capture dynamic environment in a fn item; use the || { ...
} closure form instead
--> src/main.rs
|
4 | fn equal_to_x(z: i32) -> bool { z == x }
| ^
The compiler even reminds us that this only works with closures!
When a closure captures a value from its environment, it uses memory to store the values for use in the closure body. This use of memory is overhead that we don’t want to pay in more common cases where we want to execute code that doesn’t capture its environment. Because functions are never allowed to capture their environment, defining and using functions will never incur this overhead.
Closures can capture values from their environment in three ways, which
directly map to the three ways a function can take a parameter: taking
ownership, borrowing immutably, and borrowing mutably. These are encoded in the
three Fn
traits as follows:
FnOnce
consumes the variables it captures from its enclosing scope, known as the closure’s environment. To consume the captured variables, the closure must take ownership of these variables and move them into the closure when it is defined. TheOnce
part of the name represents the fact that the closure can’t take ownership of the same variables more than once, so it can be called only once.Fn
borrows values from the environment immutably.FnMut
can change the environment because it mutably borrows values.
When we create a closure, Rust infers which trait to use based on how the
closure uses the values from the environment. In Listing 13-12, the
equal_to_x
closure borrows x
immutably (so equal_to_x
has the Fn
trait)
because the body of the closure only needs to read the value in x
.
If we want to force the closure to take ownership of the values it uses in the
environment, we can use the move
keyword before the parameter list. This
technique is mostly useful when passing a closure to a new thread to move the
data so it’s owned by the new thread.
We’ll have more examples of move
closures in Chapter 16 when we talk about
concurrency. For now, here’s the code from Listing 13-12 with the move
keyword added to the closure definition and using vectors instead of integers,
because integers can be copied rather than moved; note that this code will not
yet compile:
Filename: src/main.rs
fn main() {
let x = vec![1, 2, 3];
let equal_to_x = move |z| z == x;
println!("can't use x here: {:?}", x);
let y = vec![1, 2, 3];
assert!(equal_to_x(y));
}
We receive the following error:
error[E0382]: use of moved value: `x`
--> src/main.rs:6:40
|
4 | let equal_to_x = move |z| z == x;
| -------- value moved (into closure) here
5 |
6 | println!("can't use x here: {:?}", x);
| ^ value used here after move
|
= note: move occurs because `x` has type `std::vec::Vec<i32>`, which does not
implement the `Copy` trait
The x
value is moved into the closure when the closure is defined, because we
added the move
keyword. The closure then has ownership of x
, and main
isn’t allowed to use x
anymore in the println!
statement. Removing
println!
will fix this example.
Most of the time when specifying one of the Fn
trait bounds, you can start
with Fn
and the compiler will tell you if you need FnMut
or FnOnce
based
on what happens in the closure body.
To illustrate situations where closures that can capture their environment are useful as function parameters, let’s move on to our next topic: iterators.