Update *reference* definition to make it clearer in chapter 4.2

[troglodytto]

No description provided.

[carols10cents]

Can you clarify what you found to be unclear about the original and what is clearer to you about the new version?

[troglodytto]

@carols10cents
The wording of this sentence is a bit confusing, even to native english speakers, let alone non-native speakers

reference is like a pointer in that it’s an address

In the new version, the flow of the sentence is simple, which makes it easier to understand the underlying concept

reference is like a pointer, i.e it's an address

[troglodytto]

@carols10cents Any updates on this?

[carols10cents]

I'm working on updating the book for print and I'll get to this the next time I'm revising chapter 4.

[vinsburg]

A good proposal, but I think we can untangle it a bit more. how about?:

Like a pointer, a reference holds the address to data owned by another variable, we can follow it to access the data.
Unlike a pointer ....

[troglodytto]

That can undermine the "definition" of the word reference in a sense, i.e what the word reference actually means, So what about..

"A reference is like a pointer, i.e a variable that stores the address of the data owned by another variable; An address that we can follow in order to access the data stored at that address (data, which is owned by some other variable). However, unlike a pointer, a reference is guaranteed to point to a valid value of a
particular type for the lifetime of that reference. This is because the compiler checks for the validity of that value at compile time"

[troglodytto]

@vinsburg Any updates on this?

[vinsburg]

Sorry, busy week :)
Looks good all in all.
I assume you meant to remove the repeated explanation of data ownership inside the brackets "(data, which is owned by some other variable)"

[troglodytto]

Yes! Although, keeping the duplication might help clarify the point since it can mean the reference variable itself or the variable that it's pointing to, and it can be a bit vague. It's better to be explicit, just like most things in Rust ;)

[troglodytto]

@vinsburg

[vinsburg]

@troglodytto I think both approaches are plausible.
I assume we are still waiting for the book print before these changes and others are revised by @carols10cents.

[chriskrycho]

Thanks for the PR. I am noting this section to make sure Carol or I look at it again as we do revisions, but in the case of this specific PR, I think the new text is pretty similar to the old text in terms of how clear it is. If we decide to tackle this in some way, we will likely rewrite the sentences entirely rather than just tweaking the wording. (This is by no means a commitment to doing that, though; we may decide it is just best left as it is!) Thanks again.