Can't borrow mutably within two different closures in the same scope

Question

My goal is to make a function (specifically, floodfill) that works independent of the underlying data structure. I tried to do this by passing in two closures: one for query

Answer 1

The problem is rooted in the fact that there's information that you know that the compiler doesn't.

As mentioned in the comments, you cannot mutate a value while there is a immutable reference to it — otherwise it wouldn't be immutable! It happens that your function needs to access the data immutably once and then mutably, but the compiler doesn't know that from the signature of the function. All it can tell is that the function can call the closures in any order and any number of times, which would include using the immutable data after it's been mutated.

I'm guessing that your original code indeed does that — it probably loops and accesses the "immutable" data after mutating it.

Compile-time borrow checking

One solution is to stop capturing the data in the closure. Instead, "promote" the data to an argument of the function and the closures:

fn foo<T, F, G>(n: i32, data: &mut T, closure: F, mut mut_closure: G)
where
    F: Fn(&mut T, i32) -> bool,
    G: FnMut(&mut T, i32),
{
    if closure(data, n) {
        mut_closure(data, n);
    }
}

fn main() {
    let mut data = 0;

    foo(
        0,
        &mut data,
        |data, n| *data == n,
        |data, n| *data += n,
    );
}

However, I believe that two inter-related closures like that will lead to poor maintainability. Instead, give a name to the concept and make a trait:

trait FillTarget {
    fn test(&self, _: i32) -> bool;
    fn do_it(&mut self, _: i32);
}

fn foo<F>(n: i32, mut target: F)
where
    F: FillTarget,
{
    if target.test(n) {
        target.do_it(n);
    }
}

struct Simple(i32);

impl FillTarget for Simple {
    fn test(&self, n: i32) -> bool {
        self.0 == n
    }

    fn do_it(&mut self, n: i32) {
        self.0 += n
    }
}

fn main() {
    let data = Simple(0);
    foo(0, data);
}

Run-time borrow checking

Because your code has a temporal need for the mutability (you only need it either mutable or immutable at a given time), you could also switch from compile-time borrow checking to run-time borrow checking. As mentioned in the comments, tools like Cell, RefCell, and Mutex can be used for this:

use std::cell::Cell;

fn main() {
    let data = Cell::new(0);

    foo(
        0,
        |n| data.get() == n,
        |n| data.set(data.get() + n),
    );
}

See also:

• When I can use either Cell or RefCell, which should I choose?
• Situations where Cell or RefCell is the best choice
• Need holistic explanation about Rust's cell and reference counted types

Unsafe programmer-brain-time borrow checking

RefCell and Mutex have a (small) amount of runtime overhead. If you've profiled and determined that to be a bottleneck, you can use unsafe code. The usual unsafe caveats apply: it's now up to you, the fallible programmer, to ensure your code doesn't perform any undefined behavior. This means you have to know what is and is not undefined behavior!

use std::cell::UnsafeCell;

fn main() {
    let data = UnsafeCell::new(0);

    foo(
        0,
        |n| unsafe { *data.get() == n },
        |n| unsafe { *data.get() += n },
    );
}

I, another fallible programmer, believe this code to be safe because there will never be temporal mutable aliasing of data. However, that requires knowledge of what foo does. If it called one closure at the same time as the other, this would most likely become undefined behavior.

Additional comments

1. There's no reason to take references to your generic closure types for the closures

2. There's no reason to use -> () on the closure type, you can just omit it.