Would it make sense to add an additional exercise to move_semantics?

[feoh]

Rustlings is amazing. Heartfelt thanks to everyone involved.

I just finished move_semantics6.rs which I found quite tricky but very helpful once I solved it and understood the necessary syntax to implement ownership in one spot and borrowing in another.

Would Rustlings benefit from another similar, perhaps just a smidge more complex exercise given the tricky nature of the subject matter?

Thanks again in any case! Just a thought :)

[daniel-pfeiffer]

Not sure where you found move_semantics6.rs. But I’m with you on the sentiment.

I came here to suggest swapping move_semantics5.rs & move_semantics4.rs. I found jumping right in to mut references, before having really seen plain references (other than &str) quite a mouthful.

[feoh]

Rustlings evolves over time, which is very much a good thing :)

it had changed dramatically from when I started to when I finished.