What I am trying to do is to implement a strategy pattern in Rust. In this example I have several sorting algos that I've coded:
use std::cmp::{ Ord, Ordering };
pub trait Sorter {
fn sort<T>(arr: &mut Vec<T>, desc: bool) where T: Ord + Copy;
}
pub struct BubleSort;
pub struct SelectionSort;
impl Sorter for BubleSort {
fn sort<T>(arr: &mut Vec<T>, desc: bool) where T: Ord + Copy{
...
}
}
impl Sorter for SelectionSort {
fn sort<T>(arr: &mut Vec<T>, desc: bool) where T: Ord + Copy{
...
}
}
Then I want to pass one of them to a function to use it. Something like this:
fn sort<T>(sorter: dyn Sorter, arr: &mut Vec<T>) {
sorter::sort(arr);
}
Also is it possible to add them in lets say a Vec and iterate over it, so I can call the functions from there?
Is this possible, or do I need to make instances of the structs and use methods instead?
You can statically parameterise on the sorter type:
fn sort<Strategy: Sorter, T>(arr: &mut Vec<T>, descending: bool) where T: Ord + Copy {
Strategy::sort(arr, descending);
}
fn main() {
let mut v: Vec<u8> = Vec::new();
sort::<SelectionSort, _>(&mut v, false);
}
In other situations you might want to instantiate the structure and work with instance methods, but since the method is generic it can't be dynamically dispatched, therefore it's not super useful. Although I guess you could have an intermediate enum serving as dynamic dispatcher:
fn sort<Strategy: Sorter, T>(strategy: Strategy, arr: &mut Vec<T>, descending: bool) where T: Ord + Copy {
strategy.sort(arr, descending);
}
enum Dynamic {
BubbleSort,
SelectionSort
}
impl Sorter for Dynamic {
fn sort<T>(&self, arr: &mut Vec<T>, desc: bool) where T: Ord + Copy {
match self {
Self::BubbleSort => sort(BubbleSort, arr, desc),
Self::SelectionSort => sort(SelectionSort, arr, desc),
}
}
}
fn main() {
let mut v: Vec<u8> = Vec::new();
sort(Dynamic::BubbleSort, &mut v, false);
}
Related
How does one create a set of sets in Rust? Is it necessary to write an impl block for every concrete type satisfying HashSet<HashSet<_>>?
Minimal failing example:
fn main () {
let a: HashSet<u32> = HashSet::new();
let c: HashSet<HashSet<u32>> = HashSet::new();
c.insert(a);
}
Error:
"insert" method cannot be called on `std::collections::HashSet<std::collections::HashSet<u32>>` due to unsatisfied trait bounds
HashSet doesn't satisfy `std::collections::HashSet<u32>: Hash
Is it possible to override the fact that HashSet is unhashable? I'd like to use a HashSet and need my contents to be unique by actual (memory) equality; I don't need to unique by contents.
I'd like to have a set of sets and want them to be unique by "actual" (memory) equality, not by contents.
To do so you first need to box the hashset so that it has a stable memory address. For example:
struct Set<T>(Box<HashSet<T>>);
To make your Set hashable, you'll need to implement Hash and Eq:
impl<T> Set<T> {
fn as_addr(&self) -> usize {
// as_ref() gives the reference to the heap-allocated contents
// inside the Box, which is stable; convert that reference to a
// pointer and then to usize, and use it for hashing and equality.
self.0.as_ref() as *const _ as usize
}
}
impl<T> Hash for Set<T> {
fn hash<H: Hasher>(&self, state: &mut H) {
self.as_addr().hash(state);
}
}
impl<T> Eq for Set<T> {}
impl<T> PartialEq for Set<T> {
fn eq(&self, other: &Self) -> bool {
self.as_addr() == other.as_addr()
}
}
Finally, you'll need to add some set-like methods and a constructor to make it usable:
impl<T: Hash + Eq> Set<T> {
pub fn new() -> Self {
Set(Box::new(HashSet::new()))
}
pub fn insert(&mut self, value: T) {
self.0.insert(value);
}
pub fn contains(&mut self, value: &T) -> bool {
self.0.contains(value)
}
}
Now your code will work, with the additional use of Rc so that you have the original Set available for lookup after you insert it:
fn main() {
let mut a: Set<u32> = Set::new();
a.insert(1);
let a = Rc::new(a);
let mut c: HashSet<_> = HashSet::new();
c.insert(Rc::clone(&a));
assert!(c.contains(&a));
}
Playground
As pointed out helpfully in the comments, it's not possible to hash sets because they have no fixed address. An effective, if inelegant, solution, is to wrap them in a specialized struct:
struct HashableHashSet<T> {
hash: ...
hashset: HashSet<T>
}
And then hash the struct by memory equality.
I have a number of generic functions that need to return new instances of the generic. However, the fields in the generic are not known, but I need to get/set the field values to create the instance (a simple Default will not work). For primitive fields, I can update my struct, but for fields with Vector or HashMap types, I get the error:
the size for values of type `[usize]` cannot be known at compilation time
Here is a minimal working example of my issue:
https://play.rust-lang.org/?version=stable&mode=debug&edition=2018&gist=6db1dd0b5982eca526725f4e5b423263
trait MyTrait {
fn id(&self) -> &usize;
fn id_mut(&mut self) -> &mut usize;
fn data(&self) -> &[usize];
fn data_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [usize];
}
#[derive(Debug)]
struct MyStruct {
id: usize,
data: Vec<usize>,
}
impl MyTrait for MyStruct {
fn id(&self) -> &usize {
&self.id
}
fn id_mut(&mut self) -> &mut usize {
&mut self.id
}
fn data(&self) -> &[usize] {
&self.data
}
fn data_mut(&mut self) -> &mut [usize] {
&mut self.data
}
}
impl Default for MyStruct {
fn default() -> MyStruct {
MyStruct {
id: 0,
data: vec![],
}
}
}
fn my_func<T: MyTrait + Default>() -> T {
let mut d = T::default();
// this correctly updates the struct field "id" to 26
*d.id_mut() = 26;
// this however, does not work. i get an error:
// the size for values of type `[usize]` cannot be known at compilation time
*d.data_mut() = vec![1, 2, 3].as_slice();
d
}
fn main() {
let _my_instance = my_func::<MyStruct>();
}
How can I create a generic function that returns an instance of the generic type?
For your Default instance of MyStruct, data is an empty Vec, but you are exposing it as a mutable slice. This is pretty meaningless because you can't change the length of a mutable slice; you can only mutate existing elements.
You will need to expose data as a &mut Vec<usize> instead, so that you can insert elements. The immutable getter can stay the same.
trait MyTrait {
fn id(&self) -> &usize;
fn id_mut(&mut self) -> &mut usize;
fn data(&self) -> &[usize];
fn data_mut(&mut self) -> &mut Vec<usize>;
}
And change the code that updates it:
fn my_func<T: MyTrait + Default>() -> T {
let mut d = T::default();
*d.id_mut() = 26;
*d.data_mut() = vec![1, 2, 3];
d
}
I tried implementing a generic A* tree search algorithm. The important part is in the function hucs marked with a TODO:
use std::collections::BinaryHeap;
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::cmp::Ordering;
pub trait SearchTree<A> {
fn available_actions(&self) -> Vec<A>;
fn apply_action(&self, act: &A) -> Self;
}
pub trait CostSearchTree<A>: SearchTree<A> + Eq {
fn action_cost(&self, act: &A) -> f64;
}
/// Node in the expanded search tree for uniform cost search with heuristic
struct HucsNode<A, T>
where
T: CostSearchTree<A>,
{
cost: f64,
heuristic_cost: f64,
parent_index: usize,
action: Option<A>,
tree: T,
}
impl<A, T> PartialEq for HucsNode<A, T>
where
T: CostSearchTree<A>,
{
fn eq(&self, other: &HucsNode<A, T>) -> bool {
// Can be used for closed list checking if we just compare the trees
return self.tree == other.tree;
}
}
impl<A, T> Eq for HucsNode<A, T>
where
T: CostSearchTree<A>,
{
}
impl<A, T> PartialOrd for HucsNode<A, T>
where
T: CostSearchTree<A>,
{
fn partial_cmp(&self, other: &HucsNode<A, T>) -> Option<Ordering> {
Some(self.cmp(other))
}
}
impl<A, T> Ord for HucsNode<A, T>
where
T: CostSearchTree<A>,
{
fn cmp(&self, other: &HucsNode<A, T>) -> Ordering {
let self_cost = self.cost + self.heuristic_cost;
let other_cost = other.cost + other.heuristic_cost;
// Flip for min-heap
match other_cost.partial_cmp(&self_cost) {
Some(order) => order,
_ => Ordering::Equal,
}
}
}
/// Perform a uniform cost search with a monotonous heuristic function on a search tree.
/// Returns a sequence of actions if a state is found that satisfies the predicate or None if the search terminates before.
pub fn hucs<A, T: CostSearchTree<A> + Hash>(
tree: T,
predicate: &Fn(&T) -> bool,
heuristic: &Fn(&T) -> f64,
) -> Option<Vec<A>> {
let mut node_heap = BinaryHeap::new() as BinaryHeap<HucsNode<A, T>>;
// Push the initial node onto the tree
node_heap.push(HucsNode {
action: None,
parent_index: usize::max_value(),
cost: 0.0,
heuristic_cost: heuristic(&tree),
tree: tree,
});
let mut old_nodes = Vec::new();
let mut last_node_index = 0 as usize;
'outer: while let Some(current_node) = node_heap.pop() {
// Break borrows with scope so current_node can be moved out
{
if predicate(¤t_node.tree) {
return Some(form_action_sequence(current_node, old_nodes));
}
// Check if visited nodes already contains this tree with less cost
// TODO: Time complexity is hardly ideal
for old_node in old_nodes.iter() {
if old_node.tree == current_node.tree && old_node.cost <= current_node.cost {
continue 'outer;
}
}
let ref current_tree = current_node.tree;
for action in current_tree.available_actions() {
let action_cost = current_tree.action_cost(&action);
let new_tree = current_tree.apply_action(&action);
let new_cost = current_node.cost + action_cost;
let new_node = HucsNode {
action: Some(action),
cost: new_cost,
parent_index: last_node_index,
heuristic_cost: heuristic(&new_tree),
tree: new_tree,
};
node_heap.push(new_node);
}
}
old_nodes.push(current_node);
last_node_index += 1;
}
return None;
}
/// Restore the sequence of actions that was used to get to this node by climbing the tree of expanded nodes
fn form_action_sequence<A, T: CostSearchTree<A>>(
leaf: HucsNode<A, T>,
mut older_nodes: Vec<HucsNode<A, T>>,
) -> Vec<A> {
let mut action_vector = Vec::new();
let mut current = leaf;
while let Some(action) = current.action {
action_vector.insert(0, action);
// Safe to swap as nodes' parents are always before them
current = older_nodes.swap_remove(current.parent_index);
}
return action_vector;
}
The problem is that looking up whether the current node was in the old nodes by scanning over the old nodes takes way too long. Therefore I wanted to add a HashMap. Since I however also need to be able to access the old nodes by indices to form the solution action sequence at the end, I also need to keep the Vec. To solve this I tried adding a wrapper that I can insert into the HashMap as a key that just looks up its content in the Vec like this:
use std::hash::Hash;
use std::hash::Hasher;
struct BackedHashWrapper<'a, T: 'a + Hash + Eq> {
source: &'a Vec<T>,
index: usize,
}
impl<A, T> Hash for HucsNode<A, T>
where
T: CostSearchTree<A> + Hash,
{
fn hash<H>(&self, state: &mut H)
where
H: Hasher,
{
self.tree.hash(state);
}
}
impl<'a, T> Hash for BackedHashWrapper<'a, T>
where
T: Eq + Hash,
{
fn hash<H>(&self, state: &mut H)
where
H: Hasher,
{
self.source[self.index].hash(state);
}
}
impl<'a, T> PartialEq for BackedHashWrapper<'a, T>
where
T: Eq + Hash,
{
fn eq(&self, other: &BackedHashWrapper<T>) -> bool {
self.source[self.index] == other.source[other.index]
}
}
impl<'a, T> Eq for BackedHashWrapper<'a, T>
where
T: Eq + Hash,
{
}
I cannot figure out how to implement this in the hucs method, I tried the following just for adding elements to the hashmap
...
let mut old_nodes = Vec::new();
let mut hash_map = HashMap::new();
...
...
hash_map.insert(BackedHashWrapper {source: &old_nodes, index: last_node_index}, current_node.cost);
old_nodes.push(current_node);
last_node_index += 1;
...
but the borrow checker will not allow me to create such a BackedHashWrapper while the source vector is mutable. Clearly I am doing this completely the wrong way, so how could I accomplish this without having to clone either the tree or any actions?
I suppose it is easier to use other type of backing storage (TypedArena from typed-arena crate, for example).
But taking the question at face value, the problem you are dealing with is caused by Rust borrowing rules. That is you can't have shared (&) and mutable (&mut) references or multiple mutable references to the same object in the same scope.
hash_map in your example holds shared references to the vector, "freezing" it, which makes it impossible to modify the vector while hash_map is in the scope.
Solution to this problem is interior mutability pattern.
In your case, you can use RefCell<Vec<T>> to be able to modify vector while holding multiple references to it.
use std::cell::RefCell;
type RVec<T> = RefCell<Vec<T>>;
struct BackedHashWrapper<'a, T: 'a + Hash + Eq> {
source: &'a RVec<T>,
index: usize,
}
...
impl<'a, T> Hash for BackedHashWrapper<'a, T>
where
T: Eq + Hash,
{
fn hash<H>(&self, state: &mut H)
where
H: Hasher,
{
self.source.borrow()[self.index].hash(state);
}
}
...
// Similar changes for Eq and PartialEq
...
let mut old_nodes: RVec<_> = RefCell::default();
let mut hash_map = HashMap::new();
...
...
hash_map.insert(BackedHashWrapper {source: &old_nodes, index: last_node_index}, current_node.cost);
old_nodes.borrow_mut().push(current_node);
last_node_index += 1;
...
Maybe a couple of borrow()s and borrow_mut()s will be required in other places.
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>
pub struct Storage<T>{
vec: Vec<T>
}
impl<T: Clone> Storage<T>{
pub fn new() -> Storage<T>{
Storage{vec: Vec::new()}
}
pub fn get<'r>(&'r self, h: &Handle<T>)-> &'r T{
let index = h.id;
&self.vec[index]
}
pub fn set(&mut self, h: &Handle<T>, t: T){
let index = h.id;
self.vec[index] = t;
}
pub fn create(&mut self, t: T) -> Handle<T>{
self.vec.push(t);
Handle{id: self.vec.len()-1}
}
}
struct Handle<T>{
id: uint
}
I am currently trying to create a handle system in Rust and I have some problems. The code above is a simple example of what I want to achieve.
The code works but has one weakness.
let mut s1 = Storage<uint>::new();
let mut s2 = Storage<uint>::new();
let handle1 = s1.create(5);
s1.get(handle1); // works
s2.get(handle1); // unsafe
I would like to associate a handle with a specific storage like this
//Pseudo code
struct Handle<T>{
id: uint,
storage: &Storage<T>
}
impl<T> Handle<T>{
pub fn get(&self) -> &T;
}
The problem is that Rust doesn't allow this. If I would do that and create a handle with the reference of a Storage I wouldn't be allowed to mutate the Storage anymore.
I could implement something similar with a channel but then I would have to clone T every time.
How would I express this in Rust?
The simplest way to model this is to use a phantom type parameter on Storage which acts as a unique ID, like so:
use std::kinds::marker;
pub struct Storage<Id, T> {
marker: marker::InvariantType<Id>,
vec: Vec<T>
}
impl<Id, T> Storage<Id, T> {
pub fn new() -> Storage<Id, T>{
Storage {
marker: marker::InvariantType,
vec: Vec::new()
}
}
pub fn get<'r>(&'r self, h: &Handle<Id, T>) -> &'r T {
let index = h.id;
&self.vec[index]
}
pub fn set(&mut self, h: &Handle<Id, T>, t: T) {
let index = h.id;
self.vec[index] = t;
}
pub fn create(&mut self, t: T) -> Handle<Id, T> {
self.vec.push(t);
Handle {
marker: marker::InvariantLifetime,
id: self.vec.len() - 1
}
}
}
pub struct Handle<Id, T> {
id: uint,
marker: marker::InvariantType<Id>
}
fn main() {
struct A; struct B;
let mut s1 = Storage::<A, uint>::new();
let s2 = Storage::<B, uint>::new();
let handle1 = s1.create(5);
s1.get(&handle1);
s2.get(&handle1); // won't compile, since A != B
}
This solves your problem in the simplest case, but has some downsides. Mainly, it depends on the use to define and use all of these different phantom types and to prove that they are unique. It doesn't prevent bad behavior on the user's part where they can use the same phantom type for multiple Storage instances. In today's Rust, however, this is the best we can do.
An alternative solution that doesn't work today for reasons I'll get in to later, but might work later, uses lifetimes as anonymous id types. This code uses the InvariantLifetime marker, which removes all sub typing relationships with other lifetimes for the lifetime it uses.
Here is the same system, rewritten to use InvariantLifetime instead of InvariantType:
use std::kinds::marker;
pub struct Storage<'id, T> {
marker: marker::InvariantLifetime<'id>,
vec: Vec<T>
}
impl<'id, T> Storage<'id, T> {
pub fn new() -> Storage<'id, T>{
Storage {
marker: marker::InvariantLifetime,
vec: Vec::new()
}
}
pub fn get<'r>(&'r self, h: &Handle<'id, T>) -> &'r T {
let index = h.id;
&self.vec[index]
}
pub fn set(&mut self, h: &Handle<'id, T>, t: T) {
let index = h.id;
self.vec[index] = t;
}
pub fn create(&mut self, t: T) -> Handle<'id, T> {
self.vec.push(t);
Handle {
marker: marker::InvariantLifetime,
id: self.vec.len() - 1
}
}
}
pub struct Handle<'id, T> {
id: uint,
marker: marker::InvariantLifetime<'id>
}
fn main() {
let mut s1 = Storage::<uint>::new();
let s2 = Storage::<uint>::new();
let handle1 = s1.create(5);
s1.get(&handle1);
// In theory this won't compile, since the lifetime of s2
// is *slightly* shorter than the lifetime of s1.
//
// However, this is not how the compiler works, and as of today
// s2 gets the same lifetime as s1 (since they can be borrowed for the same period)
// and this (unfortunately) compiles without error.
s2.get(&handle1);
}
In a hypothetical future, the assignment of lifetimes may change and we may grow a better mechanism for this sort of tagging. However, for now, the best way to accomplish this is with phantom types.