Functions

Functions are pervasive in Rust code. We’ve already seen the most important function, main(), in previous sections of the book:

fn main() {
println!("Hello, world!");
}


We can declare new functions with the fn keyword:

fn another_function() {
println!("Another function.");
}


Rust code uses snake_case as a style for function names: all lower case, with underscores separating words. (It also uses them for variable names, too.) We can can call any function we’ve defined by using its name and some parentheses:

fn main() {
println!("Hello, world!");

another_function();
}

fn another_function() {
println!("Another function.");
}


Let’s start a new project to explore functions. Open a terminal, and navigate to the directory where you’d like to keep your projects. From there, use Cargo to generate a new project:

$cargo new --bin functions$ cd functions


Place the new example in src/main.rs, and run it:

$cargo run Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions) Running target/debug/functions Hello, world! Another function.  As we can see, the lines execute in order: first, we print out our “Hello, world!” message, and then another_function() is called. It then prints its message as well. Function Arguments Functions can also take arguments: fn main() { another_function(5); } fn another_function(x: i32) { println!("The value of x is: {}", x); }  Let’s try running it: $ cargo run
Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions)
Running target/debug/functions
The value of x is: 5


Let’s take a closer look at another_function()’s signature:

fn another_function(x: i32) {


Declaring a function which takes a single argument looks like this:

fn NAME(PATTERN: TYPE) {


That’s right, patterns appear again. Consider how the parameter declaration here looks like the let bindings we used earlier:

let x: i32;
fn another_function(x: i32) {


There’s only one difference here: in function signatures, we must declare the type. This is a deliberate decision; we find that requiring type annotations in functions means that you almost never need them anywhere else.

You can separate multiple arguments with a comma:

fn NAME(PATTERN, PATTERN, PATTERN, PATTERN...) {


Here’s a full example:

fn main() {
another_function(5, 6);
}

fn another_function(x: i32, y: i32) {
println!("The value of x is: {}", x);
println!("The value of y is: {}", y);
}


Let’s try it:

$cargo run Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions) Running target/debug/functions The value of x is: 5 The value of y is: 6  We could also create bindings, and pass them in as arguments: fn main() { let a = 5; let b = 6; another_function(a, b); } fn another_function(x: i32, y: i32) { println!("The value of x is: {}", x); println!("The value of y is: {}", y); }  This has the same effect: $ cargo run
Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions)
Running target/debug/functions
The value of x is: 5
The value of y is: 6


Note that our bindings are called a and b, yet inside of the function, we refer to them by the names in the signature, x and y. Inside a function, only its parameters are in scope, so we need to use those names. Bindings passed as parameters don’t need to have the same name as the arguments.

Return values

Functions can also return values back to the function that called them:

fn NAME(PATTERN, PATTERN, PATTERN, PATTERN...) -> TYPE {


We don’t name return values, but we do declare their type, after an arrow: ->. Here’s a sample program:

fn main() {
let x = five();

println!("The value of x is: {}", x);
}

fn five() -> i32 {
5
}


Let’s try running it:

$cargo run Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions) Running target/debug/functions The value of x is: 5  Let’s examine this in more detail. There are two important bits. First, we can use the return value of a function to initialize a binding: let x = five();  Because five() returns a 5, this is the same as: let x = 5;  The second interesting bit is five() itself: fn five() -> i32 { 5 }  We have no arguments, and our return type, i32. However, the body of this function is a lonely 5. There’s a detail here that you may or may not have noticed: we’ve ended almost every line in our programs with a semicolon. There’s no semicolon here, though. Why not? The answer to this question is: The return value of a function is the value of its final expression. We haven’t talked about expressions yet, so this definition doesn’t help a lot. Let’s go over that now. Statements and Expressions Expressions are bits of code that evaluate to a value. Consider some math operations, like this: 5 + 6  We can evaluate this expression, and come up with a value: 11. In Rust, most bits of code are expressions. For example, calling a function is an expression: foo(5)  The value is equal to whatever the return value of foo() is. So why does this matter? Well, not everything is an expression. Some things are ‘statements’. Expressions compute something, but statements bind or do something. It’s a subtle difference. We’ve already seen two kinds of statements: let statements, and fn declarations. Because let is a statement, not an expression, you can’t assign it to another binding. Here’s an example that doesn’t work: fn main() { let x = (let y = 6); }  If we try to run this program, we’ll get an error: $ cargo run
Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions)
src/main.rs:2:14: 2:17 error: expected identifier, found keyword let
src/main.rs:2     let x = (let y = 6);
^~~
src/main.rs:2:18: 2:19 error: expected one of !, ), ,, ., ::, {, or an operator, found y
src/main.rs:2     let x = (let y = 6);
^
Could not compile functions.


We also cannot somehow assign a fn declaration to a binding, either.

So what’s this have to do with return values? Well, {}, a ‘block’ that we used earlier to create new scopes, is an expression. Let’s take a closer look at {}. It looks like this:

{
STATEMENT*
EXPRESSION
}


The * there means ‘zero or more’, so we can have any number of statements followed by an expression. Since blocks are expressions themselves, we can nest blocks inside of blocks. And since they return a value, we can use them in let statements:

fn main() {
let x = 5;

let y = {
let z = 1;

x + z + 5
};

println!("The value of y is: {}", y);
}


Let’s try running this program:

   Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions)
Running target/debug/functions
The value of y is: 11


We’re now using a block to give us a value for y:

let y = {

};


Since the block can contain statements, we create a new variable binding, z, and give it a value. We then do some math for the final expression of the block:

{
let z = 1;

x + z + 5
}


5 + 1 + 5 is 11, and so the value of the entire block is 11. This gets substituted into our let statement for y:

let y = 11;


Hence our output saying y is 11.

Where else do we use blocks? As the body of functions! They’re very similar:

fn main() {
let x = 5;

let y = {
x + 1
};

println!("The value of y is: {}", y);

let y = plus_one(x);

println!("The value of y is: {}", y);
}

fn plus_one(x: i32) -> i32 {
x + 1
}


Running this gives:

$cargo run Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions) Running target/debug/functions The value of y is: 6 The value of y is: 6  In both cases, we use a block to produce a value. In the first case, it’s assigning with let: let y = {  In the second, it’s the return value of the function: fn plus_one(x: i32) -> i32 {  Expression statements There’s one more detail about expressions and statements: a semicolon takes any expression, and turns it into a statement. Let’s accidentally cause an error with plus_one(): fn main() { let x = plus_one(5); println!("The value of x is: {}", x); } fn plus_one(x: i32) -> i32 { x + 1; }  Instead of an expression, x + 1, we’ve now turned it into a statement, x + 1;. Running this gives an error: $ cargo run
Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions)
src/main.rs:7:1: 9:2 error: not all control paths return a value [E0269]
src/main.rs:7 fn plus_one(x: i32) -> i32 {
src/main.rs:8     x + 1;
src/main.rs:9 }
src/main.rs:7:1: 9:2 help: run rustc --explain E0269 to see a detailed explanation
src/main.rs:8:10: 8:11 help: consider removing this semicolon:
src/main.rs:8     x + 1;
^
error: aborting due to previous error
Could not compile functions.


Rust has our back here: it even suggests removing the semicolon, which fixes the error. But the main error message is the core of the issue: statements don’t evaluate to a value, yet we want to return an i32.

In practice, Rust programmers don’t often think about these rules at this level. Usually, you have a semicolon at the end of most lines, and maybe not at the end of blocks.

Multiple return values

Functions cannot directly return multiple values. There’s a trick, however. Remember the ()s we used when showing off complex bindings?

fn main() {
let (x, y) = (5, 6);
}


They form something called a ‘tuple’, one of Rust’s basic types. A tuple is an anonymous collection of elements. But since a tuple is a singular thing, we can use it as a way to return multiple values from functions:

fn main() {
let (x, y) = two_numbers();

println!("The value of x is: {}", x);
println!("The value of y is: {}", y);
}

fn two_numbers() -> (i32, i32) {
(5, 6)
}


Running this will show us the values:

\$ cargo run
Compiling functions v0.1.0 (file:///projects/functions)
Running target/debug/functions
The value of x is: 5
The value of y is: 6


There are two interesting changes here: assigning the return value of two_numbers() to x and y, and the declaration of two_numbers() itself.

Let’s look at the declaration first:

fn two_numbers() -> (i32, i32) {
(5, 6)
}


The (i32, i32) should look familiar. We saw it in let bindings earlier:

let (x, y): (i32, i32) = (5, 6);


The (i32, i32) syntax says “a tuple with two i32s in it.” The (5, 6) syntax creates a new one, with 5 and 6.

This tuple is then returned, and assigned to x and y:

let (x, y) = two_numbers();


See how all these bits fit together?

We call this behavior of let ‘destructuring’, because it takes the structure of the expression that comes after the = and takes it apart.