Why are explicit lifetimes needed in Rust?

Why are explicit lifetimes needed in Rust?

I was reading the&nbsp;<a href="https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/first-edition/lifetimes.html" target="_blank">lifetimes chapter</a>&nbsp;of the Rust book, and I came across this example for a named/explicit lifetime:

I was reading the lifetimes chapter of the Rust book, and I came across this example for a named/explicit lifetime:

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

fn main() { let x; // -+ x goes into scope // | { // | let y = &5; // ---+ y goes into scope let f = Foo { x: y }; // ---+ f goes into scope x = &f.x; // | | error here } // ---+ f and y go out of scope // | println!("{}", x); // | } // -+ x goes out of scope

It's quite clear to me that the error being prevented by the compiler is the use-after-free of the reference assigned to x: after the inner scope is done, f and therefore &f.x become invalid, and should not have been assigned to x.

My issue is that the problem could have easily been analyzed away without using the explicit 'alifetime, for instance by inferring an illegal assignment of a reference to a wider scope (x = &f.x;).

In which cases are explicit lifetimes actually needed to prevent use-after-free (or some other class?) errors?

Angular 9 Tutorial: Learn to Build a CRUD Angular App Quickly

What's new in Bootstrap 5 and when Bootstrap 5 release date?

Brave, Chrome, Firefox, Opera or Edge: Which is Better and Faster?

How to Build Progressive Web Apps (PWA) using Angular 9

What is new features in Javascript ES2020 ECMAScript 2020

Rust & WebAssembly para JavaScripters

A lo largo de la charla descubriremos las características más destacables de Rust, sus similitudes y diferencias con JavaScript y veremos qué aporta Rust al futuro de la Web gracias a WebAssembly. Rust es un lenguaje tipado, rápido y seguro, que ha sido diseñado por Mozilla como lenguaje de sistemas, aunque en los últimos tiempos ha ganado mucha popularidad en el terreno del desarrollo Web gracias a WebAssembly, su amplio ecosistema y gran comunidad

Rust vs. Go: Should I Rust, or Should I Go

Well both Rust and Go provide amazing performance. Should you write you’re next big thing with Rust or with Go? Go is fast and powerful, but it avoids bogging the developer down, focusing instead on simplicity and uniformity. Rust. If on the other hand, wringing out every last ounce of performance is a necessity, then Rust should be your choice. Rust is more of a competitor to C++ than it is with Go.

The Rust Programming Language - Understanding If in Rust

The Rust Programming Language - Understanding If in Rust. Rust’s take on if is not particularly complex, but it’s much more like the if you’ll find in a dynamically typed language than in a more traditional systems language. if is a specific form of a more general concept, the ‘branch’, whose name comes from a branch in a tree: a decision point, where depending on a choice, multiple paths can be taken.