Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix a potentially confusing statement about static lifetimes of static variables. #2692

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Jul 2, 2021
Merged

Fix a potentially confusing statement about static lifetimes of static variables. #2692

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
6 changes: 3 additions & 3 deletions src/ch19-01-unsafe-rust.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -370,10 +370,10 @@ Static variables are similar to constants, which we discussed in the
[“Differences Between Variables and
Constants”][differences-between-variables-and-constants]<!-- ignore -->
section in Chapter 3. The names of static variables are in
`SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE` by convention, and we *must* annotate the variable’s
type, which is `&'static str` in this example. Static variables can only store
`SCREAMING_SNAKE_CASE` by convention. Static variables can only store
references with the `'static` lifetime, which means the Rust compiler can
figure out the lifetime; we don’t need to annotate it explicitly. Accessing an
figure out the lifetime; we don’t need to annotate it explicitly, although
that used to be required, so you may see that in older code. Accessing an
immutable static variable is safe.

Constants and immutable static variables might seem similar, but a subtle
Expand Down