How to create a hashmap owing {Key: String, Value: function} - rust

I'm rust freshman
I want to use hashmap key to call funtion like below
let map = HashMap::from([("add", func_add), ("sub", func_sub)]);
if let Some(func) = map.get("add") {
func();
}
else {}
functions in different keys may have different parameter quantities and types
Does this possible in rust?
If not, how can I call a function without fuction name(memory address or something)

functions in different keys may have different parameter quantities and types Does this possible in rust?
No. Rust is very statically typed, it doesn't do "fuzzy".
If not, how can I call a function without fuction name(memory address or something)
You can always do that, functions are first class objects in Rust.
You can even unify different functions with the exact same signature through the magic of function pointers (fn()) or trait objects (dyn Fn()):
fn main() {
let m0: HashMap<&str, fn(i32, i32) -> i32> = [
("add", (|a, b| a + b) as _),
("sub", (|a, b| a - b) as _),
].into();
dbg!(m0["sub"](1, 2));
let m1: HashMap<&str, Box<dyn Fn(i32, i32) -> i32>> = [
("add", Box::new(|a, b| a + b) as _),
("sub", Box::new(|a, b| a - b) as _),
].into();
dbg!(m1["add"](1, 2));
}
However if you also need variable arities and types, then you need to reify that through additional layers of indirection e.g.
double-type-erase through double boxing, that requires the least up-front work (just a bunch of casting) but the callsites become pretty gnarly:
let m: HashMap<&str, Box<dyn Any>> = [
("neg", Box::new(Box::new(|a: i32| - a) as Box<dyn Fn(i32) -> i32>) as _),
("add", Box::new(Box::new(|a, b| a + b) as Box<dyn Fn(i32, i32) -> i32>) as _),
].into();
let f = &m["neg"];
if let Some(f) = f.downcast_ref::<Box<dyn Fn(i32) -> i32>>() {
dbg!(f(5));
}
this can be simplified a bit through wrapper types, at the cost of more setup
an exhaustive enums for all your combinations of parameters and types
defining all your functions to have the same static interface (e.g. that all of them take an Args or Vec<Arg> which can be dynamically dispatched either internally or externally), possibly through a compatibility layer of macro(s), you might want to limit your input and output types and use something like serde_json::Value in that case
Other possibilities:
use a struct rather than a hashmap, then each named slot can have a static type which makes things much easier
use something like a type map, but that also requires wrapper type (per slot) in order to differentiate slots with the same signature

Related

Can I specify the type for iterators based on closures?

I wrote a function to iterate over neighbors of cells in a 2d grid:
pub fn neighbours(
(width, height): (usize, usize),
(x, y): (usize, usize),
) -> impl Iterator<Item = (usize, usize)> {
[(-1, 0), (1, 0), (0, -1), (0, 1)]
.iter()
.map(move |(dx, dy)| (x as i64 + dx, y as i64 + dy))
.filter(move |&(nx, ny)| 0 <= ny && ny < height as i64 && 0 <= nx && nx < width as i64)
.map(|(nx, ny)| (nx as usize, ny as usize))
}
Note that it returns an impl Iterator<Item = (usize, usize)>.
If I understand correctly, returning an impl would result in slower code, calling function pointers instead of compiling things down to simple loops. Right?
So wanting to specify a more exact type, I replaced the type with () to see what type the compiler infers, and it infers
std::iter::Map<std::iter::Filter<std::iter::Map<std::slice::Iter<'l, (i64, i64)>, _>, _>, _>
Where the _s stand for closures which I don't know how to specify their types.
I tried to extract the closures to structs with Fn traits but couldn't make that work and also IIUC implementing Fn traits is an unstable feature and I shouldn't use it"
If I understand correctly, returning an impl would result in slower code, calling function pointers instead of compiling things down to simple loops. Right?
Nope. Returning impl Iterator<Item = (usize, usize)> is exactly the same, codegen-wise, as returning Map<Filter<Map<...>>>.¹ The difference is twofold:
Changing the return type of neighbours does not require changing its signature, so impl Iterator is forward-compatible with changes to its return type.
impl Iterator won't unify with other opaque impl Iterator types, even if they happen to have the same underlying type. (In simple terms: the compiler won't allow you to make a Vec of impl Iterators from different sources, even if all those opaque types are the same concrete type.)
Neither of these differences has any influence on code generation or the compiler's ability to inline anything, so go ahead and use impl Iterator.
There is one case where you must still use indirect dispatch (dyn Iterator): when the function neighbours is itself part of a trait, the impl Trait syntax is not yet available (as of 1.59). The best way to solve this at the moment is to return Box<dyn Iterator>. (Note, however, that doesn't mean every call will be dynamically dispatched; the call to .next() will be, but everything "inside" that still uses easily-optimized static dispatch.)
Related questions
What is the correct way to return an Iterator (or any other trait)?
How do I return an instance of a trait from a method?
https://stackoverflow.com/a/39490692/3650362 (when the method is part of a trait)
¹ Note that in order to actually return Map<Filter<Map<...>>>, you would still have to use impl Trait to represent the closures, since they have anonymous types.

How can I write my own swap function in Rust?

std::mem::swap has the signature:
pub fn swap<T>(x: &mut T, y: &mut T)
If I try to implement it (playground):
pub fn swap<T>(a: &mut T, b: &mut T) {
let t = a;
a = b;
b = t;
}
I get an error about the lifetimes of the two parameters:
error[E0623]: lifetime mismatch
--> src/lib.rs:4:9
|
1 | pub fn swap<T>(a: &mut T, b: &mut T) {
| ------ ------
| |
| these two types are declared with different lifetimes...
...
4 | b = t;
| ^ ...but data from `a` flows into `b` here
error[E0623]: lifetime mismatch
--> src/lib.rs:3:9
|
1 | pub fn swap<T>(a: &mut T, b: &mut T) {
| ------ ------ these two types are declared with different lifetimes...
2 | let t = a;
3 | a = b;
| ^ ...but data from `b` flows into `a` here
If I change the signature to:
pub fn swap_lt<'t, T>(mut a: &'t T, mut b: &'t T)
It compiles, but I get a warning which seems to mean that we're just swapping temporary copies:
warning: value assigned to `a` is never read
--> src/lib.rs:3:5
|
3 | a = b;
| ^
|
= note: `#[warn(unused_assignments)]` on by default
= help: maybe it is overwritten before being read?
warning: value assigned to `b` is never read
--> src/lib.rs:4:5
|
4 | b = t;
| ^
|
= help: maybe it is overwritten before being read?
Your code is not operating on temporary copies. It just swaps the references that were passed in, which does not have any effect on the values they are pointing to. This also explains why the compiler wants the lifetimes to match – reference x is pointing to the value reference y pointed to before and vice versa, which is only possible if the two references have the same lifetime.
When swapping the actual values, a different problem occurs. You first need to move one of the values to a temporary variable. However, since T is not Copy, you can't move a value out from behind a reference, since this would leave the reference invalid, which is not allowed in Rust. If you allow T: Default, you could replace the value with its default temporarily. However, if you want to implement the function for the general case, you need to resort to unsafe code. One way of doing so is using the std::ptr::read() and std::ptr::write() functions to read and write data from raw pointers:
fn swap<T>(x: &mut T, y: &mut T) {
unsafe {
let z = read(x);
write(x, read(y));
write(y, z);
}
}
This code is trickier than it looks. The read() function returns a copy of the value without invalidating the original value, so we end up with the same non-Copy value being present in two places. We need to take care that we don't drop any of the values, which happens implicitly in many cases. For example, this implementation is wrong, since it implicitly drops the value x is initially pointing to
fn swap<T>(x: &mut T, y: &mut T) {
unsafe {
let z = read(x);
*x = read(y); // Wrong – drops the original value x is pointing to
write(y, z);
}
}
The actual implementation of swap() in the standard library uses a few optimizations:
It makes use of the std::ptr::copy_nonoverlapping() function instead of write(x, read(y)), which is implemented as a compiler intrinsic. The Rust compiler delegates this to LLVM to make sure the generated code is as efficient as possible for the target platform. Our code actually uses temporary storage for both x and y. Using copy_nonoverlapping(), temporary storage is only needed for one of the variables.
Values of size 32 or larger are swapped in blocks, so only 32 bytes of temporary storage are needed.
If you, for the sake of an exercise, don't want to use core::mem::swap or say core::ptr::swap, you could implement it as such:
pub fn swap<T>(a: &mut T, b: &mut T) {
unsafe {
let t = core::ptr::read(a);
core::ptr::copy_nonoverlapping(b, a, 1);
core::ptr::write(b, t);
}
}
Doing it using strictly safe code is not possible without having something like T: Default.
Other answers have covered unsafe implementations of swap(). A safe implementation is possible as well, but it requires additional constraints on T. For example:
pub fn swap<T: Default>(x: &mut T, y: &mut T) {
let t = std::mem::take(x);
*x = std::mem::take(y);
*y = t;
}
Here T: Default is required by std::mem::take(), which moves the value out of an &mut T reference, and leaves T::default() as replacement. A replacement is needed because the value behind the reference can and will be used again, so it must be in a valid state. For example, to move the value out of *x, we need to leave a well-defined value in *x because we will assign to *x in the subsequent line. The assignment, unaware of the previous operation, expects a valid value on the left-hand side, in order to destroy it. Leaving the old value untouched in *x would result in use-after-free and ultimately a double-free.
Another option is to require Clone:
pub fn swap<T: Clone>(x: &mut T, y: &mut T) {
let t = x.clone();
*x = y.clone();
*y = t;
}
For standard library containers this variant will be less efficient because T::clone() will perform a deep copy of the container, whereas T::default() will create an empty container without performing an allocation.
Implementing swap() without additional constraint on T requires unsafe code, as shown in other answers.

Is it possible to have a heterogeneous vector of types that implement Eq?

I want a vector for elements that contain a trait such as Eq and I need heterogeneous vectors. For example:
let mut x: Vec<Eq> = Vec::new();
x.push(1);
x.push("hello")
I get an error message that says that Eq cannot be made into an object:
error[E0038]: the trait `std::cmp::Eq` cannot be made into an object
--> src/main.rs:2:20
|
2 | let mut x: Vec<Eq> = Vec::new();
| ^^ the trait `std::cmp::Eq` cannot be made into an object
|
= note: the trait cannot use `Self` as a type parameter in the supertrait listing
Is it possible to have a list of pointers to things I can compare regardless of their types?
Is it possible to have a list of pointers to things I can compare regardless of their types?
This doesn't make sense. How do you "compare" a String and a File or a Socket and a GuiWindowFontFamily?
The code has some minor issues as well, namely that it lacks any kind of indirection for the trait. See What is the best way to create a heterogeneous collection of objects? for a good overview of how to make a heterogeneous vector when not fighting object safety.
Speaking of object safety, there's a great blog series on the subject, which covers the details of the specific error you are getting.
So, what can we do? For starters, we can be more specific:
let mut x: Vec<Box<PartialEq<u8>>> = Vec::new();
This works because we are saying that everything in the vector can be compared to a u8, and there's not an open-ended infinite number of possibilities that each may be compared to.
You could also implement some trait that dictates how things should be compared, and then use that:
trait Silly {
fn silly(&self) -> usize;
}
impl Silly for u8 {
fn silly(&self) -> usize { *self as usize }
}
impl Silly for bool {
fn silly(&self) -> usize { 1 }
}
fn main() {
let mut x: Vec<Box<Silly>> = Vec::new();
}

Struggling with closures and lifetimes in Rust

I'm trying to port a little benchmark from F# to Rust. The F# code looks like this:
let inline iterNeighbors f (i, j) =
f (i-1, j)
f (i+1, j)
f (i, j-1)
f (i, j+1)
let rec nthLoop n (s1: HashSet<_>) (s2: HashSet<_>) =
match n with
| 0 -> s1
| n ->
let s0 = HashSet(HashIdentity.Structural)
let add p =
if not(s1.Contains p || s2.Contains p) then
ignore(s0.Add p)
Seq.iter (fun p -> iterNeighbors add p) s1
nthLoop (n-1) s0 s1
let nth n p =
nthLoop n (HashSet([p], HashIdentity.Structural)) (HashSet(HashIdentity.Structural))
(nth 2000 (0, 0)).Count
It computes the nth-nearest neighbor shells from an initial vertex in a potentially infinite graph. I used something similar during my PhD to study amorphous materials.
I've spent many hours trying and failing to port this to Rust. I have managed to get one version working but only by manually inlining the closure and converting the recursion into a loop with local mutables (yuk!).
I tried writing the iterNeighbors function like this:
use std::collections::HashSet;
fn iterNeighbors<F>(f: &F, (i, j): (i32, i32)) -> ()
where
F: Fn((i32, i32)) -> (),
{
f((i - 1, j));
f((i + 1, j));
f((i, j - 1));
f((i, j + 1));
}
I think that is a function that accepts a closure (that itself accepts a pair and returns unit) and a pair and returns unit. I seem to have to double bracket things: is that correct?
I tried writing a recursive version like this:
fn nthLoop(n: i32, s1: HashSet<(i32, i32)>, s2: HashSet<(i32, i32)>) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
if n == 0 {
return &s1;
} else {
let mut s0 = HashSet::new();
for &p in s1 {
if !(s1.contains(&p) || s2.contains(&p)) {
s0.insert(p);
}
}
return &nthLoop(n - 1, s0, s1);
}
}
Note that I haven't even bothered with the call to iterNeighbors yet.
I think I'm struggling to get the lifetimes of the arguments correct because they are rotated in the recursive call. How should I annotate the lifetimes if I want s2 to be deallocated just before the returns and I want s1 to survive either when returned or into the recursive call?
The caller would look something like this:
fn nth<'a>(n: i32, p: (i32, i32)) -> &'a HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
let s0 = HashSet::new();
let mut s1 = HashSet::new();
s1.insert(p);
return &nthLoop(n, &s1, s0);
}
I gave up on that and wrote it as a while loop with mutable locals instead:
fn nth<'a>(n: i32, p: (i32, i32)) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
let mut n = n;
let mut s0 = HashSet::new();
let mut s1 = HashSet::new();
let mut s2 = HashSet::new();
s1.insert(p);
while n > 0 {
for &p in &s1 {
let add = &|p| {
if !(s1.contains(&p) || s2.contains(&p)) {
s0.insert(p);
}
};
iterNeighbors(&add, p);
}
std::mem::swap(&mut s0, &mut s1);
std::mem::swap(&mut s0, &mut s2);
s0.clear();
n -= 1;
}
return s1;
}
This works if I inline the closure by hand, but I cannot figure out how to invoke the closure. Ideally, I'd like static dispatch here.
The main function is then:
fn main() {
let s = nth(2000, (0, 0));
println!("{}", s.len());
}
So... what am I doing wrong? :-)
Also, I only used HashSet in the F# because I assume Rust doesn't provide a purely functional Set with efficient set-theoretic operations (union, intersection and difference). Am I correct in assuming that?
I think that is a function that accepts a closure (that itself accepts a pair and returns unit) and a pair and returns unit. I seem to have to double bracket things: is that correct?
You need the double brackets because you're passing a 2-tuple to the closure, which matches your original F# code.
I think I'm struggling to get the lifetimes of the arguments correct because they are rotated in the recursive call. How should I annotate the lifetimes if I want s2 to be deallocated just before the returns and I want s1 to survive either when returned or into the recursive call?
The problem is that you're using references to HashSets when you should just use HashSets directly. Your signature for nthLoop is already correct; you just need to remove a few occurrences of &.
To deallocate s2, you can write drop(s2). Note that Rust doesn't have guaranteed tail calls, so each recursive call will still take a bit of stack space (you can see how much with the mem::size_of function), but the drop call will purge the data on the heap.
The caller would look something like this:
Again, you just need to remove the &'s here.
Note that I haven't even bothered with the call to iterNeighbors yet.
This works if I inline the closure by hand but I cannot figure out how to invoke the closure. Ideally, I'd like static dispatch here.
There are three types of closures in Rust: Fn, FnMut and FnOnce. They differ by the type of their self argument. The distinction is important because it puts restrictions on what the closure is allowed to do and on how the caller can use the closure. The Rust book has a chapter on closures that already explains this well.
Your closure needs to mutate s0. However, iterNeighbors is defined as expecting an Fn closure. Your closure cannot implement Fn because Fn receives &self, but to mutate s0, you need &mut self. iterNeighbors cannot use FnOnce, since it needs to call the closure more than once. Therefore, you need to use FnMut.
Also, it's not necessary to pass the closure by reference to iterNeighbors. You can just pass it by value; each call to the closure will only borrow the closure, not consume it.
Also, I only used HashSet in the F# because I assume Rust doesn't provide a purely functional Set with efficient set-theoretic operations (union, intersection and difference). Am I correct in assuming that?
There's no purely functional set implementation in the standard library (maybe there's one on crates.io?). While Rust embraces functional programming, it also takes advantage of its ownership and borrowing system to make imperative programming safer. A functional set would probably impose using some form of reference counting or garbage collection in order to share items across sets.
However, HashSet does implement set-theoretic operations. There are two ways to use them: iterators (difference, symmetric_difference, intersection, union), which generate the sequence lazily, or operators (|, &, ^, -, as listed in the trait implementations for HashSet), which produce new sets containing clones of the values from the source sets.
Here's the working code:
use std::collections::HashSet;
fn iterNeighbors<F>(mut f: F, (i, j): (i32, i32)) -> ()
where
F: FnMut((i32, i32)) -> (),
{
f((i - 1, j));
f((i + 1, j));
f((i, j - 1));
f((i, j + 1));
}
fn nthLoop(n: i32, s1: HashSet<(i32, i32)>, s2: HashSet<(i32, i32)>) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
if n == 0 {
return s1;
} else {
let mut s0 = HashSet::new();
for &p in &s1 {
let add = |p| {
if !(s1.contains(&p) || s2.contains(&p)) {
s0.insert(p);
}
};
iterNeighbors(add, p);
}
drop(s2);
return nthLoop(n - 1, s0, s1);
}
}
fn nth(n: i32, p: (i32, i32)) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
let mut s1 = HashSet::new();
s1.insert(p);
let s2 = HashSet::new();
return nthLoop(n, s1, s2);
}
fn main() {
let s = nth(2000, (0, 0));
println!("{}", s.len());
}
I seem to have to double bracket things: is that correct?
No: the double bracketes are because you've chosen to use tuples and calling a function that takes a tuple requires creating the tuple first, but one can have closures that take multiple arguments, like F: Fn(i32, i32). That is, one could write that function as:
fn iterNeighbors<F>(i: i32, j: i32, f: F)
where
F: Fn(i32, i32),
{
f(i - 1, j);
f(i + 1, j);
f(i, j - 1);
f(i, j + 1);
}
However, it seems that retaining the tuples makes sense for this case.
I think I'm struggling to get the lifetimes of the arguments correct because they are rotated in the recursive call. How should I annotate the lifetimes if I want s2 to be deallocated just before the returns and I want s1 to survive either when returned or into the recursive call?
No need for references (and hence no need for lifetimes), just pass the data through directly:
fn nthLoop(n: i32, s1: HashSet<(i32, i32)>, s2: HashSet<(i32, i32)>) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
if n == 0 {
return s1;
} else {
let mut s0 = HashSet::new();
for &p in &s1 {
iterNeighbors(p, |p| {
if !(s1.contains(&p) || s2.contains(&p)) {
s0.insert(p);
}
})
}
drop(s2); // guarantees timely deallocation
return nthLoop(n - 1, s0, s1);
}
}
The key here is you can do everything by value, and things passed around by value will of course keep their values around.
However, this fails to compile:
error[E0387]: cannot borrow data mutably in a captured outer variable in an `Fn` closure
--> src/main.rs:21:21
|
21 | s0.insert(p);
| ^^
|
help: consider changing this closure to take self by mutable reference
--> src/main.rs:19:30
|
19 | iterNeighbors(p, |p| {
| ______________________________^
20 | | if !(s1.contains(&p) || s2.contains(&p)) {
21 | | s0.insert(p);
22 | | }
23 | | })
| |_____________^
That is to say, the closure is trying to mutate values it captures (s0), but the Fn closure trait doesn't allow this. That trait can be called in a more flexible manner (when shared), but this imposes more restrictions on what the closure can do internally. (If you're interested, I've written more about this)
Fortunately there's an easy fix: using the FnMut trait, which requires that the closure can only be called when one has unique access to it, but allows the internals to mutate things.
fn iterNeighbors<F>((i, j): (i32, i32), mut f: F)
where
F: FnMut((i32, i32)),
{
f((i - 1, j));
f((i + 1, j));
f((i, j - 1));
f((i, j + 1));
}
The caller would look something like this:
Values work here too: returning a reference in that case would be returning a pointer to s0, which lives the stack frame that is being destroyed as the function returns. That is, the reference is pointing to dead data.
The fix is just not using references:
fn nth(n: i32, p: (i32, i32)) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
let s0 = HashSet::new();
let mut s1 = HashSet::new();
s1.insert(p);
return nthLoop(n, s1, s0);
}
This works if I inline the closure by hand but I cannot figure out how to invoke the closure. Ideally, I'd like static dispatch here.
(I don't understand what this means, including the compiler error messages you're having trouble with helps us help you.)
Also, I only used HashSet in the F# because I assume Rust doesn't provide a purely functional Set with efficient set-theoretic operations (union, intersection and difference). Am I correct in assuming that?
Depending on exactly what you want, no, e.g. both HashSet and BTreeSet provide various set-theoretic operations as methods which return iterators.
Some small points:
explicit/named lifetimes allow the compiler to reason about the static validity of data, they don't control it (i.e. they allow the compiler to point out when you do something wrong, but language still has the same sort of static resource usage/life-cycle guarantees as C++)
the version with a loop is likely to be more efficient as written, as it reuses memory directly (swapping the sets, plus the s0.clear(), however, the same benefit can be realised with a recursive version by passing s2 down for reuse instead of dropping it.
the while loop could be for _ in 0..n
there's no need to pass closures by reference, but with or without the reference, there's still static dispatch (the closure is a type parameter, not a trait object).
conventionally, closure arguments are last, and not taken by reference, because it makes defining & passing them inline easier to read (e.g. foo(x, |y| bar(y + 1)) instead of foo(&|y| bar(y + 1), x))
the return keyword isn't necessary for trailing returns (if the ; is omitted):
fn nth(n: i32, p: (i32, i32)) -> HashSet<(i32, i32)> {
let s0 = HashSet::new();
let mut s1 = HashSet::new();
s1.insert(p);
nthLoop(n, s1, s0)
}

Calling a function which takes a closure twice with different closures

As a project for learning rust, I am writing a program which can parse sgf files (a format for storing go games, and technically also other games). Currently the program is supposed to parse strings of the type (this is just an exampel) ";B[ab]B[cd]W[ef]B[gh]" into [Black((0,1)),Black((2,3,)),White((4,5)),Black((6,7))]
For this I am using the parser-combinators library.
I have run into the following error:
main.rs:44:15: 44:39 error: can't infer the "kind" of the closure; explicitly annotate it; e.g. `|&:| {}` [E0187]
main.rs:44 pmove().map(|m| {Property::White(m)})
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
main.rs:44:15: 44:39 error: mismatched types:
expected `closure[main.rs:39:15: 39:39]`,
found `closure[main.rs:44:15: 44:39]`
(expected closure,
found a different closure) [E0308]
main.rs:44 pmove().map(|m| {Property::White(m)})
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
error: aborting due to 2 previous errors
Could not compile `go`.
The function in question is below. I am completely new to rust, so I can't really isolate the problem further or recreate it in a context without the parser-combinators library (might even have something to do with that library?).
fn parse_go_sgf(input: &str) -> Vec<Property> {
let alphabetic = |&:| {parser::satisfy(|c| {c.is_alphabetic()})};
let prop_value = |&: ident, value_type| {
parser::spaces().with(ident).with(parser::spaces()).with(
parser::between(
parser::satisfy(|c| c == '['),
parser::satisfy(|c| c == ']'),
value_type
)
)
};
let pmove = |&:| {
alphabetic().and(alphabetic())
.map(|a| {to_coord(a.0, a.1)})
};
let pblack = prop_value(
parser::string("B"),
pmove().map(|m| {Property::Black(m)}) //This is where I am first calling the map function.
);
let pwhite = prop_value(
parser::string("W"),
pmove().map(|m| {Property::White(m)}) //This is where the compiler complains
);
let pproperty = parser::try(pblack).or(pwhite);
let mut pnode = parser::spaces()
.with(parser::string(";"))
.with(parser::many(pproperty));
match pnode.parse(input) {
Ok((value, _)) => value,
Err(err) => {
println!("{}",err);
vec!(Property::Unkown)
}
}
}
So I am guessing this has something to do with closures all having different types. But in other cases it seems possible to call the same function with different closures. For example
let greater_than_forty_two = range(0, 100)
.find(|x| *x > 42);
let greater_than_forty_three = range(0, 100)
.find(|x| *x > 43);
Seems to work just fine.
So what is going on in my case that is different.
Also, as I am just learning, any general comments on the code are also welcome.
Unfortunately, you stumbled upon one of the rough edges in the Rust type system (which is, given the closure-heavy nature of parser-combinators, not really unexpected).
Here is a simplified example of your problem:
fn main() {
fn call_closure_fun<F: Fn(usize)>(f: F) { f(12) } // 1
fn print_int(prefix: &str, i: usize) { println!("{}: {}", prefix, i) }
let call_closure = |&: closure| call_closure_fun(closure); // 2
call_closure(|&: i| print_int("first", i)); // 3.1
call_closure(|&: i| print_int("second", i)); // 3.2
}
It gives exactly the same error as your code:
test.rs:8:18: 8:47 error: mismatched types:
expected `closure[test.rs:7:18: 7:46]`,
found `closure[test.rs:8:18: 8:47]`
(expected closure,
found a different closure) [E0308]
test.rs:8 call_closure(|&: i| print_int("second", i));
^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
We have (referenced in the comments in the code):
a function which accepts a closure of some concrete form;
a closure which calls a function (1) with its own argument;
two invocations of closure (1), passing different closures each time.
Rust closures are unboxed. It means that for each closure the compiler generates a fresh type which implements one of closure traits (Fn, FnMut, FnOnce). These types are anonymous - they don't have a name you can write out. All you know is that these types implement a certain trait.
Rust is a strongly- and statically-typed language: the compiler must know exact type of each variable and each parameter at the compile time. Consequently it has to assign types for every parameter of every closure you write. But what type should closure argument of (2) have? Ideally, it should be some generic type, just like in (1): the closure should accept any type as long as it implements a trait. However, Rust closures can't be generic, and so there is no syntax to specify that. So Rust compiler does the most natural thing it can - it infers the type of closure argument based on the first use of call_closure, i.e. from 3.1 invocation - that is, it assigns the anonymous type of the closure in 3.1!
But this anonymous type is different from the anonymous type of the closure in 3.2: the only thing they have in common is that they both implement Fn(usize). And this is exactly what error is about.
The best solution would be to use functions instead of closures because functions can be generic. Unfortunately, you won't be able to do that either: your closures return structures which contain closures inside themselves, something like
pub struct Satisfy<I, Pred> { ... }
where Pred is later constrained to be Pred: FnMut(char) -> bool. Again, because closures have anonymous types, you can't specify them in type signatures, so you won't be able to write out the signature of such generic function.
In fact, the following does work (because I've extracted closures for parser::satisfy() calls to parameters):
fn prop_value<'r, I, P, L, R>(ident: I, value_type: P, l: L, r: R) -> pp::With<pp::With<pp::With<pp::Spaces<&'r str>, I>, pp::Spaces<&'r str>>, pp::Between<pp::Satisfy<&'r str, L>, pp::Satisfy<&'r str, R>, P>>
where I: Parser<Input=&'r str, Output=&'r str>,
P: Parser<Input=&'r str, Output=Property>,
L: Fn(char) -> bool,
R: Fn(char) -> bool {
parser::spaces().with(ident).with(parser::spaces()).with(
parser::between(
parser::satisfy(l),
parser::satisfy(r),
value_type
)
)
}
And you'd use it like this:
let pblack = prop_value(
parser::string("B"),
pmove().map(|&: m| Property::Black(m)),
|c| c == '[', |c| c == ']'
);
let pwhite = prop_value(
parser::string("W"),
pmove().map(|&: m| Property::White(m)),
|c| c == '[', |c| c == ']'
);
pp is introduced with use parser::parser as pp.
This does work, but it is really ugly - I had to use the compiler error output to actually determine the required return type. With the slightest change in the function it will have to be adjusted again. Ideally this is solved with unboxed abstract return types - there is a postponed RFC on them - but we're still not there yet.
As the author of parser-combinators I will just chime in on another way of solving this, without needing to use the compiler to generate the return type.
As each parser is basically just a function together with 2 associated types there are implementations for the Parser trait for all function types.
impl <I, O> Parser for fn (State<I>) -> ParseResult<O, I>
where I: Stream { ... }
pub struct FnParser<I, O, F>(F);
impl <I, O, F> Parser for FnParser<I, O, F>
where I: Stream, F: FnMut(State<I>) -> ParseResult<O, I> { ... }
These should all be replaced by a single trait and the FnParser type removed, once the orphan checking allows it. In the meantime we can use the FnParser type to create a parser from a closure.
Using these traits we can essentially hide the big parser type returned from in Vladimir Matveev's example.
fn prop_value<'r, I, P, L, R>(ident: I, value_type: P, l: L, r: R, input: State<&'r str>) -> ParseResult<Property, &'r str>
where I: Parser<Input=&'r str, Output=&'r str>,
P: Parser<Input=&'r str, Output=Property>,
L: Fn(char) -> bool,
R: Fn(char) -> bool {
parser::spaces().with(ident).with(parser::spaces()).with(
parser::between(
parser::satisfy(l),
parser::satisfy(r),
value_type
)
).parse_state(input)
}
And we can now construct the parser with this
let parser = FnParser(move |input| prop_value(ident, value_type, l, r, input));
And this is basically the best we can do at the moment using rust. Unboxed anonymous return types would make all of this significantly easier since complex return types would not be needed (nor created since the library itself could be written to utilize this, avoiding the complex types entirely).
Two facets of Rust's closures are causing your problem, one, closures cannot be generic, and two, each closure is its own type. Because closure's cannot be generic,prop_value's parameter value_type must be a specific type. Because each closure is a specific type, the closure you pass to prop_value in pwhite is a different type from the one in pblack. What the compiler does is conclude that the value_type must have the type of the closure in pblack, and when it gets to pwhite it finds a different closure, and gives an error.
Judging from your code sample, the simplest solution would probably be to make prop_value a generic fn - it doesn't look like it needs to be a closure. Alternatively, you could declare its parameter value_type to be a closure trait object, e.g. &Fn(...) -> .... Here is a simplifed example demonstrating these approaches:
fn higher_fn<F: Fn() -> bool>(f: &F) -> bool {
f()
}
let higher_closure = |&: f: &Fn() -> bool | { f() };
let closure1 = |&:| { true };
let closure2 = |&:| { false };
higher_fn(&closure1);
higher_fn(&closure2);
higher_closure(&closure1);
higher_closure(&closure2);
The existing answer(s) are good, but I wanted to share an even smaller example of the problem:
fn thing<F: FnOnce(T), T>(f: F) {}
fn main() {
let caller = |&: f| {thing(f)};
caller(|&: _| {});
caller(|&: _| {});
}
When we define caller, its signature is not fully fixed yet. When we call it the first time, type inference sets the input and output types. In this example, after the first call, caller will be required to take a closure with a specific type, the type of the first closure. This is because each and every closure has its own unique, anonymous type. When we call caller a second time, the second closure's (unique, anonymous) type doesn't fit!
As #wingedsubmariner points out, there's no way to create closures with generic types. If we had hypothetical syntax like for<F: Fn()> |f: F| { ... }, then perhaps we could work around this. The suggestion to make a generic function is a good one.

Resources