Rust Programming

I think you already used a pretty nice way, which is using shadowing. If one variable is only used for the creation of another, simply shadowing it keeps your namespace clean.

Sometimes it doesn't make sense to give the shadowed variable the same name, because that name doesn't describe its content very well. But in this case it seems like that is not a concern.

I don't think you can, and I think it makes sense: it would be weird for the compiler to unexpectedly generate hidden variables for you.

For all the compiler knows, the temporary variable could hold a file handle, a database transaction, a Mutex, or other side effects in their Drop implementation that would make when it's dropped matter. Or it could just be a very large struct you might not expect to keep around until the end of the function (or even, the end of the program if that's a main loop).

So you should be aware of it, and thus you need the temporary variable like you did even if you just immediately shadow it. But at least you know you're holding on to it until the end of the function.

As someone else said I think the shadowing works well here.

I do also wanna mention that depending on why you need this conversion, you could use impl AsRef<std::path::Path> for your function signature so it can accept &PathBuf or &Path. Then, just use that argument with e.g. p.as_ref() to get a &Path in the function body

This is a limitation of the current borrow checker. I think there are some efforts going on to improve on this situation, but right now that's what we have to work with.

The borrow checker can keep unnamed values around for a single expression, but not beyond that.

There is a general mechanism in Rust that allows language users to add their own sugar. It's called macros 😉

macro_rules! keep {
    (let $id:ident = $expr:expr => $($tt:tt)+) => {
        let $id = $expr;
        let $id = $id$($tt)+;
    }
}

fn main() {
    keep!{ let path = std::env::current_dir().unwrap() => .as_path() };
    println!("{path:?}");
}

You can remove let from the macro's fragment specifier and invocation.

There is a to_owned() thingy I use that for path buf shenanigans. Basically the value you create is a pointer reference short of. To_owned allocates it on memory.