I am learning Rust through a educationnal project, where I wish to implement mathematical Matrices and Vectors. I am doing this for the sake of learning Rust.
I am having an issue displaying a slice of generic type in my Display function.
Here my Vector.rs file is as such:
use std::fmt;
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Vector<'a, K> {
data: &'a [K]
}
impl<'a, K> Vector<'a, K> {
fn new(data: &'a [K]) -> Vector<'a, K> {
Vector {
data: data
}
}
fn len(&self) -> usize {
self.data.len()
}
}
impl<'a, K> fmt::Display for Vector<'a, K>
where K: std::fmt::Display {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}", self.data)
}
}
fn main() {
println!("Test File for Vectors");
let mut v = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4];
let my_v = Vector::new(&v);
}
When Compiling, I face the following error
error[E0277]: `[K]` doesn't implement `std::fmt::Display`
--> Vector.rs:22:19
|
22 | write!(f, "{}", self.data)
| ^^^^^^^^^ `[K]` cannot be formatted with the default formatter
|
This error is saying I need to implement Display for the type [K] which I do not understand.
Here my type K is f64 so the Display does exists, and I also added the line where K: std::fmt::Display to be certain that type K has the Display function.
Is what I am trying to do impossible ? Did I missunderstand slices ?
Thank you.
Display is meant for the endusers, Debug is meant for the developers.
Usually, messages to endusers don't include representations of vectors, so Vec/Slice does not implement Display. They are only printable via Debug.
As your struct is actually meant to be displayed to the enduser, you need to implement Display for it yourself by actually serializing every element and then joining and formatting them the way you like.
For example, like this:
use std::fmt;
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Vector<'a, K> {
data: &'a [K],
}
impl<'a, K> Vector<'a, K> {
fn new(data: &'a [K]) -> Vector<'a, K> {
Vector { data: data }
}
}
impl<'a, K> fmt::Display for Vector<'a, K>
where
K: std::fmt::Display,
{
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
let formatted_elements = self
.data
.iter()
.map(|el| format!("{}", el))
.collect::<Vec<_>>();
let elements = formatted_elements.join(", ");
write!(f, "[{}]", elements)
}
}
fn main() {
let v = [0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4];
let my_v = Vector::new(&v);
println!("{}", my_v);
}
[0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4]
Related
I keep finding myself writing Display for structs that hold Vec of some type that implements Display. For example:
use std::fmt::Display;
struct VarTerm {
pub coeffecient: usize,
pub var_name: String,
}
impl Display for VarTerm {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}{}", self.coeffecient, self.var_name)
}
}
struct Function {
pub terms: Vec<VarTerm>,
}
impl Display for Function {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
let strings = self
.terms
.iter()
.map(|s| format!("{}", s))
.collect::<Vec<String>>()
.join(" + ");
write!(f, "{}", strings)
}
}
fn main() {
let my_function = Function {
terms: vec![
VarTerm {coeffecient: 2,var_name: "x".to_string(),},
VarTerm {coeffecient: 4,var_name: "y".to_string(),},
VarTerm {coeffecient: 5,var_name: "z".to_string(),},
],
};
println!("All that work to print something: {}", my_function)
}
This looks bulky and ugly to me in a bunch of places - coming from higher-level languages I'm never a fan of the .iter()/.collect() sandwiching (I kind of get why it's needed but it's annoying when 90+ percent of the time I'm just going from Vec to Vec). In this case it's also compounded by the format!() call, which I swear has to be the wrong way to do that.
I'm not sure how much of this is inherent to Rust and how much is me not knowing the right way. I want to get as close as possible to something like:
self.terms.map(toString).join(" + "), which is about what I'd expect in something like Scala.
How close can I get to there? Along the way, is there anything to be done about the aforementioned iter/collect sandwiching in general?
In an eerie coincidence, literally 2 minutes ago I looked at a few methods in the itertools crate. How about this one:
https://docs.rs/itertools/latest/itertools/trait.Itertools.html#method.join
fn join(&mut self, sep: &str) -> String
where
Self::Item: Display
Combine all iterator elements into one String, separated by sep.
Use the Display implementation of each element.
use itertools::Itertools;
assert_eq!(["a", "b", "c"].iter().join(", "), "a, b, c");
assert_eq!([1, 2, 3].iter().join(", "), "1, 2, 3");
EDIT: Additionally, whenever you ask yourself if there was a nicer way to implement a particular trait, especially when the implementation would be somewhat recursive, you should look if there's a derive macro for that trait. Turns out there is, albeit in a separate crate:
https://jeltef.github.io/derive_more/derive_more/display.html
Example:
#[derive(Display)]
#[display(fmt = "({}, {})", x, y)]
struct Point2D {
x: i32,
y: i32,
}
If you find yourself repeating this a lot you might want to move the .into_iter()/.collect() into a specific trait at the cost of generality and composability.
You can also pass ToString::to_string to map.
impl Display for Function {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut std::fmt::Formatter<'_>) -> std::fmt::Result {
let strings = self.terms.map(ToString::to_string).join(" + ");
f.write_str(&strings)
}
}
trait VecMap<'a, T: 'a, U>: IntoIterator<Item = T> {
fn map(self, f: impl FnMut(T) -> U) -> Vec<U>;
}
impl<'a, T: 'a, U> VecMap<'a, &'a T, U> for &'a Vec<T> {
fn map(self, f: impl FnMut(&'a T) -> U) -> Vec<U> {
self.into_iter().map(f).collect()
}
}
I'm learning Rust and I don't udestrand what is the problem of the following code
pub enum BagEntryState {
UNUSED, USED, REMOVED
}
impl PartialEq for BagEntryState {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self == other
}
}
pub struct BagEntry< T: std::cmp::PartialEq + fmt::Display> {
state : BagEntryState,
value: T,
}
impl<'a, T: std::cmp::PartialEq + fmt::Display> BagEntry<T> {
pub fn new(value: T) -> BagEntry< T> {
BagEntry {
value,
state: BagEntryState::UNUSED,
}
}
pub fn value(self)->T {
self.value
}
}
impl<'a, T: std::cmp::PartialEq + fmt::Display> PartialEq for BagEntry<T> {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self.value == other.value
}
}
impl<T: std::cmp::PartialEq + fmt::Display> fmt::Display for BagEntry<T> {
// This trait requires `fmt` with this exact signature.
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}", self.value)
}
}
use core::fmt;
fn main() {
let my_bagentry = BagEntry::new(String::from("ciao"));
//println!("{}", my_bagentry.value());
let mut contVec : Vec<BagEntry<String>>=vec![];
contVec.push(my_bagentry);
println!("state ={}", contVec[0]);
println!("state ={}", contVec[0].value());
}
The code is not compiling becaus of the error:
54 | println!("state ={}", contVec[0].value());
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ move occurs because value has type `BagEntry<std::string::String>`, which does not implement the `Copy` trait
My guess is that the problem is that with value()
I'm exposing the struct inner value, but I cannot really understand where the problem is and how to solve it.
My aim is that BagEntry owns the value but I want safely expose it outside the struct
Basically what is happening:
pub fn value(self)->T {
self.value
}
Here -> T means that you are moving the struct field out of the struct. This is fine, but you cannot use your object anymore. You can verify this - you cannot call your println!("{}", my_bagentry.value()); twice in a row - after the first one the my_bagentry is invalidated.
If I understand correctly you want only to borrow the value out of the object. To do this you need change your method signature to borrowing one.
pub fn value(&self)-> &T {
&self.value
}
Now the call will only borrow on the object and the the resulting reference will have the lifetime of that borrow.
This is a simplified example of my code:
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
enum Data<'a> {
I32(&'a [i32]),
F64(&'a [f64]),
}
impl<'a> From<&'a [i32]> for Data<'a> {
fn from(v: &'a [i32]) -> Data<'a> {
Data::I32(v)
}
}
impl<'a> From<&'a [f64]> for Data<'a> {
fn from(v: &'a [f64]) -> Data<'a> {
Data::F64(v)
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
struct DataVar<'a> {
name: &'a str,
data: Data<'a>,
}
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T>(name: &'a str, data: T) -> Self
where
T: Into<Data<'a>>,
{
Self {
name,
data: data.into(),
}
}
}
First of all, considering that I need to cast different DataVars to the same vector, and I would like to avoid using trait objects, do you think my implementation is correct or do you have suggestions for improvement?
Now my main question. I can define new DataVars passing a slice, for instance as follows:
let x = [1, 2, 3];
let xvar = DataVar::new("x", &x[..]);
How can I modify my constructor so that it works not only with a slice, but also with a reference to array or vector? For instance I would like the following to work as well:
let x = [1, 2, 3];
let xvar = DataVar::new("x", &x);
EDIT:
Now I tried implementing the same code using a trait object instead of an enum, but the result is even worse... isn't there really any solution to this?
trait Data: std::fmt::Debug {}
impl Data for &[i32] {}
impl Data for &[f64] {}
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
struct DataVar<'a> {
name: &'a str,
data: &'a dyn Data,
}
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T>(name: &'a str, data: &'a T) -> Self
where
T: Data,
{
Self { name, data }
}
}
let x = [1, 2, 3];
let xvar = DataVar::new("x", &&x[..]);
To me, AsRef doesn't seem to be the right abstraction for two reasons: first, because it's possible (if unlikely) for a type to implement both AsRef<[i32]> and AsRef<[f64]>, and it's not clear what should happen in that case; and second, because there's already a built-in language feature (coercion) that can turn Vec<T> or &[T; n] into &[T], and you're not taking advantage of it.
What I'd like is to write a new function that looks basically like this:
fn new<T>(name: &'a str, data: &'a [T]) -> Self
where
// what goes here?
This will automatically work with &[T; n], &Vec<T>, &Cow<T>, etc. if we can tell the compiler what to do with T. It makes sense that you could make a trait that knows how to convert &'a [Self] to Data and is implemented for i32 and f64, so let's do that:
trait Item: Sized {
fn into_data<'a>(v: &'a [Self]) -> Data<'a>;
}
impl Item for i32 {
fn into_data<'a>(v: &'a [i32]) -> Data<'a> {
Data::I32(v)
}
}
impl Item for f64 {
fn into_data<'a>(v: &'a [f64]) -> Data<'a> {
Data::F64(v)
}
}
The trait bound on new becomes trivial:
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T>(name: &'a str, data: &'a [T]) -> Self
where
T: Item,
{
Self {
name,
data: T::into_data(data),
}
}
}
I find this more readable than the version with From and AsRef, but if you still want From, you can easily add it with a generic impl:
impl<'a, T> From<&'a [T]> for Data<'a>
where
T: Item,
{
fn from(v: &'a [T]) -> Self {
T::into_data(v)
}
}
We can use the AsRef trait to convert references to arrays or vectors to slices. AsRef is a generic trait, so we need to introduce a second type parameter to represent the "intermediate type" (the slice type). After calling as_ref, we've got a slice that can be converted to a Data using into.
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T, U>(name: &'a str, data: &'a T) -> Self
where
T: AsRef<U> + ?Sized,
U: ?Sized + 'a,
&'a U: Into<Data<'a>>,
{
Self {
name,
data: data.as_ref().into(),
}
}
}
Note however that the data parameter is now a reference: this is necessary because the lifetime of the reference returned by as_ref is bound by the lifetime of the self parameter passed to as_ref. If we changed the parameter back to data: T, then data.as_ref() now implicitly references data in order to call as_ref, which expects a shared reference to self (&self). But data here is a local parameter, which means that the lifetime of the reference created by this implicit referencing operation is limited to the local function, and so is the reference returned by data.as_ref(). This lifetime is shorter than 'a, so we can't store it in the DataVar and return it.
If you need to handle data values that are not references in addition to values that are references, this solution cannot support that, unfortunately.
This is actually the best solution for my case:
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T, U>(name: &'a str, data: &'a T) -> Self
where
T: AsRef<[U]> + ?Sized,
U: 'a,
&'a [U]: Into<Data<'a>>,
{
Self {
name,
data: data.as_ref().into(),
}
}
}
It works with slices, references to vectors, and references to arrays up to length 32 which implement AsRef<[T]> https://doc.rust-lang.org/beta/std/convert/trait.AsRef.html
Thanks #Francis for your hints!
Actually, this is IMHO the best solution... so similar to my initial code, I just needed a small fix in the new constructor:
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
enum Data<'a> {
I32(&'a [i32]),
F64(&'a [f64]),
}
impl<'a> From<&'a [i32]> for Data<'a> {
fn from(data: &'a [i32]) -> Data<'a> {
Data::I32(data)
}
}
impl<'a> From<&'a [f64]> for Data<'a> {
fn from(data: &'a [f64]) -> Data<'a> {
Data::F64(data)
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
struct DataVar<'a> {
name: &'a str,
data: Data<'a>,
}
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T>(name: &'a str, data: &'a [T]) -> Self
where
&'a [T]: Into<Data<'a>>,
{
Self {
name,
data: data.into(),
}
}
}
#trentcl your solution is brilliant! Now I see how to leverage coercion.
However I tweaked it a little bit as follows, I will finally use this code unless you see any drawbacks in it, thanks!
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
enum Data<'a> {
I32(&'a [i32]),
F64(&'a [f64]),
}
trait IntoData<'a>: Sized {
fn into_data(&self) -> Data<'a>;
}
impl<'a> IntoData<'a> for &'a [i32] {
fn into_data(&self) -> Data<'a> {
Data::I32(&self)
}
}
impl<'a> IntoData<'a> for &'a [f64] {
fn into_data(&self) -> Data<'a> {
Data::F64(&self)
}
}
#[derive(Debug, Clone, Copy)]
struct DataVar<'a> {
name: &'a str,
data: Data<'a>,
}
impl<'a> DataVar<'a> {
fn new<T>(name: &'a str, data: &'a [T]) -> Self
where
&'a [T]: IntoData<'a>,
{
Self {
name,
data: data.into_data(),
}
}
}
I have some code which returns a trait object of type MyTrait so that it can return one of several different structs. I would like to implement the Display trait for the trait object so that I can print the object, with the details delegated to the various structs as they each need their own custom formatters.
I can achieve this by including a formatting method as part of the MyTrait definition, and then implementing Display for MyTrait and delegating - like this:
trait MyTrait {
fn is_even(&self) -> bool;
fn my_fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result;
}
impl fmt::Display for MyTrait {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
self.my_fmt(f)
}
}
However, I already have the Display trait implemented for each of the structs which implement MyTrait. This means I end up with two methods for each struct which do the same thing - the fmt() method to satisfy the Display trait directly on the struct, and the my_fmt() method which is called by the code above. This seems clumsy and repetitive. Is there a simpler way to do it?
Here's a complete example program which illustrates the point. It's a little longer than I would have liked (it's based on the answer to my previous question Calling functions which return different types with shared trait and pass to other functions), but I couldn't think of a simpler way to illustrate the point. Of course, in this toy example the structs and the fmt functions are very simple; in my real application they are more complex.
use std::fmt;
trait MyTrait {
fn is_even(&self) -> bool;
fn my_fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result;
}
struct First {
v: u8,
}
struct Second {
v: Vec<u8>,
}
impl MyTrait for First {
fn is_even(&self) -> bool {
self.v % 2 == 0
}
fn my_fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}", self.v)
}
}
impl MyTrait for Second {
fn is_even(&self) -> bool {
self.v[0] % 2 == 0
}
fn my_fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}", self.v[0])
}
}
fn make1() -> First {
First { v: 5 }
}
fn make2() -> Second {
Second { v: vec![2, 3, 5] }
}
// Implement Display for the structs and for MyTrait
impl fmt::Display for First {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}", self.v)
}
}
impl fmt::Display for Second {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
write!(f, "{}", self.v[0])
}
}
impl fmt::Display for MyTrait {
fn fmt(&self, f: &mut fmt::Formatter) -> fmt::Result {
self.my_fmt(f)
}
}
fn requires_mytrait<T: MyTrait + ?Sized>(v: &&T) {
println!("{:?}", v.is_even());
}
fn main() {
for i in 0..2 {
let v1;
let v2;
let v = match i {
0 => {
v1 = make1();
println!("> {}", v1); // Demonstrate that Display
// is implemented directly
// on the type.
&v1 as &MyTrait
}
_ => {
v2 = make2();
println!("> {}", v2); // Demonstrate that Display
// is implemented directly
// on the type.
&v2 as &MyTrait
}
};
requires_mytrait(&v);
println!("{}", v); // Here I print the trait object
}
}
Can anyone suggest a simpler, cleaner way to do this?
You can make Display a supertrait of MyTrait.
trait MyTrait: fmt::Display {
fn is_even(&self) -> bool;
}
This will make trait objects of MyTrait be Display. This only works if you expect all implementors of MyTrait to implement Display, but that was also the case in your previous solution.
Given the implementation below, where essentially I have some collection of items that can be looked up via either a i32 id field or a string field. To be able to use either interchangeably, a trait "IntoKey" is used, and a match dispatches to the appropriate lookup map; this all works fine for my definition of get within the MapCollection impl:
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::ops::Index;
enum Key<'a> {
I32Key(&'a i32),
StringKey(&'a String),
}
trait IntoKey<'a> {
fn into_key(&'a self) -> Key<'a>;
}
impl<'a> IntoKey<'a> for i32 {
fn into_key(&'a self) -> Key<'a> { Key::I32Key(self) }
}
impl<'a> IntoKey<'a> for String {
fn into_key(&'a self) -> Key<'a> { Key::StringKey(self) }
}
#[derive(Debug)]
struct Bar {
i: i32,
n: String,
}
struct MapCollection
{
items: Vec<Bar>,
id_map: HashMap<i32, usize>,
name_map: HashMap<String, usize>,
}
impl MapCollection {
fn new(items: Vec<Bar>) -> MapCollection {
let mut is = HashMap::new();
let mut ns = HashMap::new();
for (idx, item) in items.iter().enumerate() {
is.insert(item.i, idx);
ns.insert(item.n.clone(), idx);
}
MapCollection {
items: items,
id_map: is,
name_map: ns,
}
}
fn get<'a, K>(&self, key: &'a K) -> Option<&Bar>
where K: IntoKey<'a> //'
{
match key.into_key() {
Key::I32Key(i) => self.id_map.get(i).and_then(|idx| self.items.get(*idx)),
Key::StringKey(s) => self.name_map.get(s).and_then(|idx| self.items.get(*idx)),
}
}
}
fn main() {
let bars = vec![Bar { i:1, n:"foo".to_string() }, Bar { i:2, n:"far".to_string() }];
let map = MapCollection::new(bars);
if let Some(bar) = map.get(&1) {
println!("{:?}", bar);
}
if map.get(&3).is_none() {
println!("no item numbered 3");
}
if let Some(bar) = map.get(&"far".to_string()) {
println!("{:?}", bar);
}
if map.get(&"baz".to_string()).is_none() {
println!("no item named baz");
}
}
However, if I then want to implement std::ops::Index for this struct, if I attempt to do the below:
impl<'a, K> Index<K> for MapCollection
where K: IntoKey<'a> {
type Output = Bar;
fn index<'b>(&'b self, k: &K) -> &'b Bar {
self.get(k).expect("no element")
}
}
I hit a compiler error:
src/main.rs:70:18: 70:19 error: cannot infer an appropriate lifetime for automatic coercion due to conflicting requirements
src/main.rs:70 self.get(k).expect("no element")
^
src/main.rs:69:5: 71:6 help: consider using an explicit lifetime parameter as shown: fn index<'b>(&'b self, k: &'a K) -> &'b Bar
src/main.rs:69 fn index<'b>(&'b self, k: &K) -> &'b Bar {
src/main.rs:70 self.get(k).expect("no element")
src/main.rs:71 }
I can find no way to specify a distinct lifetime here; following the compiler's recommendation is not permitted as it changes the function signature and no longer matches the trait, and anything else I try fails to satisfy the lifetime specification.
I understand that I can implement the trait for each case (i32, String) separately instead of trying to implement it once for IntoKey, but I am more generally trying to understand lifetimes and appropriate usage. Essentially:
Is there actually an issue the compiler is preventing? Is there something unsound about this approach?
Am I specifying my lifetimes incorrectly? To me, the lifetime 'a in Key/IntoKey is dictating that the reference need only live long enough to do the lookup; the lifetime 'b associated with the index fn is stating that the reference resulting from the lookup will live as long as the containing MapCollection.
Or am I simply not utilizing the correct syntax to specify the needed information?
(using rustc 1.0.0-nightly (b63cee4a1 2015-02-14 17:01:11 +0000))
Do you intend on implementing IntoKey on struct's that are going to store references of lifetime 'a? If not, you can change your trait and its implementations to:
trait IntoKey {
fn into_key<'a>(&'a self) -> Key<'a>;
}
This is the generally recommended definition style, if you can use it. If you can't...
Let's look at this smaller reproduction:
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::ops::Index;
struct Key<'a>(&'a u8);
trait IntoKey<'a> { //'
fn into_key(&'a self) -> Key<'a>;
}
struct MapCollection;
impl MapCollection {
fn get<'a, K>(&self, key: &'a K) -> &u8
where K: IntoKey<'a> //'
{
unimplemented!()
}
}
impl<'a, K> Index<K> for MapCollection //'
where K: IntoKey<'a> //'
{
type Output = u8;
fn index<'b>(&'b self, k: &K) -> &'b u8 { //'
self.get(k)
}
}
fn main() {
}
The problem lies in get:
fn get<'a, K>(&self, key: &'a K) -> &u8
where K: IntoKey<'a>
Here, we are taking a reference to K that must live as long as the Key we get out of it. However, the Index trait doesn't guarantee that:
fn index<'b>(&'b self, k: &K) -> &'b u8
You can fix this by simply giving a fresh lifetime to key:
fn get<'a, 'b, K>(&self, key: &'b K) -> &u8
where K: IntoKey<'a>
Or more succinctly:
fn get<'a, K>(&self, key: &K) -> &u8
where K: IntoKey<'a>