Hi! I wanted to double-check whether I’m missing something obvious here.

Consider the following simplified code:

fn main() {
    let a: A = /* ... */;
    let b: B = /* ... */;
    let c: C = /* ... */;
    g(&a, &b, &c);
    h(a, b, c);
}

To make some of the code (including the signatures of g and h) a bit cleaner, I thought about introducing a type alias: type Data = (A, B, C), so that g would take &Data and h would take Data . But it seems to me that changing g's input to &(a,b,c) would lead to unnecessary cloning because a tuple (a,b,c) has to be constructed?

This feels like something that should be natural in Rust, but I can’t see a slick way to express it. Am I overlooking an obvious approach?

3 posts - 3 participants

Read full topic