Clarifying deallocation order of resources within same scope #26623
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
In Chapter 5.9 (References and Borrowing), there is an example at the very end which shows that declaring a reference before declaring the variable that it points to results in a compilation error. The book does not really mention why this happens though -- in the sections before, it has described how different scopes affects the lifetime of resources, but there is no mention of how resources within the same scope work.
This confused me a little, so I asked on #rust and got the answer that the resources are destroyed in the reverse order that they are declared, but the book makes no mention of it (as far as I can find) -- except in Chapter 5.21 (Drop), where it says:
I feel like Chapter 5.9 (References and Borrowing) is probably the best place to put this information (as I have done in my additions), since it deals with other types of referencing and borrowing. However, since English is not my native language, the wording of my additions perhaps are a little "off" -- any feedback on them is appreciated.