More Succinct Option Comparison - rust

Supposing I have two option-wrapped variables, is there a better way to compare them than this?
fn comp(a: Option<i32>, b: Option<i32>) -> bool {
match a {
Some(ai) => match b {
Some(bi) => ai == bi,
_ => false,
},
None => match b {
None => true,
_ => false,
}
}
}
I don't want to lose the case where they might both be None and therefore equal, but this seems like a lot of matching for a relatively simple thing. I'm also trying to avoid unwrap().

Options can be compared directly, so you can simply return a == b.

Actually, if T: PartialEq, Option<T>: PartialEq and if T: Eq, Option<T>: Eq. See this example (Playground):
fn main() {
assert_eq!(Some(3), Some(3));
assert_ne!(Some(3), None);
assert_eq!(None, None);
assert_ne!(Some(3), Some(4));
}

Related

How to access nested enums without full match syntax

I am using the Serde crate to deserialise a JSON file, which has a nested structure like this:
struct Nested {
a: Vec<Foo>,
b: u8,
}
struct Foo {
c: Bar,
d: Vec<f32>,
}
Struct Bar {
e: u32,
f: String,
}
Part of the applications purpose is to check for missing parameters (or incorrect types in parameters), and then display a nicely printed list of errors found in the file, so I need to handle the structure missing parameters or wrongly typed.
I came across this great post that helped solved my issue, by wrapping each parameter in an enum result that contains the value if it passed, the value if it failed, or a final enum if it was missing (since the nested structures might also be missing I wrapped them in the same enum):
pub enum TryParse<T> {
Parsed(T),
Unparsed(Value),
NotPresent
}
struct Nested {
a: TryParse<Vec<Foo>>,
b: TryParse<u8>,
}
struct Foo {
c: TryParse<Bar>,
d: TryParse<Vec<f32>>,
}
Struct Bar {
e: TryParse<u32>,
f: TryParse<String>,
}
However, I'm not sure how to access them now without unpacking every step into a match statement. For example, I can access B very easily:
match file.b {
Parsed(val) => {println!("Got parameter of {}", val)},
Unparsed(val) => {println!("Invalid type: {:?}", val)}
NotPresent => {println!("b not found")},
};
However, I'm not sure how to access the nested ones (C D E and F). I can't use Unwrap or expect since this isn't technically a 'Result', so how do I unpack these?:
if file.a.c.e.Parsed() && file.a.c.e == 32 {... //invalid
if file.a.d && file.a.d.len() == 6... //invalid
I know in a way this flies against rust's 'handle every outcome' philosophy, and I want to handle them, but I want to know if there is a nicer way than 400 nested match statements (the above example is very simplified, the files I am using have up to 6 nested layers, each parameter in the top node has at least 3 layers, some are vectors as well)…
Perhaps I need to implement a function similar to unwrap() on my 'TryParse'? or would it be better to wrap each parameter in a 'Result', extend that with the deserialise trait, and then somehow store the error in the Err option that says if it was a type error or missing parameter?
EDIT
I tried adding the following, some of which works and some of which does not:
impl <T> TryParse<T> {
pub fn is_ok(self) -> bool { //works
match self {
Self::Parsed(_t) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn is_absent(self) -> bool { //works
match self {
Self::NotPresent => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn is_invalid(self) -> bool { //works
match self {
Self::Unparsed(_) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn get(self) -> Result<T, dyn Error> { //doesnt work
match self {
Self::Parsed(t) => Ok(t),
Self::Unparsed(e) => Err(e),
Self::NotPresent => Err("Invalid")
}
}
}
I can't believe it is this hard just to get the result, should I just avoid nested enums or get rid of the TryParse enums/ functions all together and wrap everything in a result, so the user simply knows if it worked or didn't work (but no explanation why it failed)
Implementing unwrap() is one possibility. Using Result is another, with a custom error type. You can deserialize directly into result with #[serde(deserialize_with = "...")], or using a newtype wrapper.
However, a not-enough-used power of pattern matching is nested patterns. For example, instead of if file.a.c.e.Parsed() && file.a.c.e == 32 you can write:
if let TryParse::Parsed(a) = &file.a {
// Unfortunately we cannot combine this `if let` with the surrounding `if let`,
// because `Vec` doesn't support pattern matching (currently).
if let TryParsed::Parsed(
[Foo {
c:
TryParse::Parsed(Bar {
e: TryParse::Parsed(32),
..
}),
..
}, ..],
) = a.as_slice()
{
// ...
}
}
May not be the most Rust-y way of doing it, but for those like me moving from another language like C/Python/C++, this is the way I have done it that still allows me to quickly validate if I have an error and use the match syntax to handle it. Thanks to #Chayim Friedman for assisting with this, his way is probably better but this made the most sense for me:
#[derive(Debug)]
pub enum TryParse<T> {
Parsed(T),
Unparsed(Value),
NotPresent
}
impl<'de, T: DeserializeOwned> Deserialize<'de> for TryParse<T> {
fn deserialize<D: Deserializer<'de>>(deserializer: D) -> Result<Self, D::Error> {
match Option::<Value>::deserialize(deserializer)? {
None => Ok(TryParse::NotPresent),
Some(value) => match T::deserialize(&value) {
Ok(t) => Ok(TryParse::Parsed(t)),
Err(_) => Ok(TryParse::Unparsed(value)),
},
}
}
}
impl <T> TryParse<T> {
//pub fn is_ok(self) -> bool { ---> Use get().is_ok(), built into result
// match self {
// Self::Parsed(_t) => true,
// _ => false,
// }
//}
pub fn is_absent(self) -> bool {
match self {
Self::NotPresent => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn is_invalid(self) -> bool {
match self {
Self::Unparsed(_) => true,
_ => false,
}
}
pub fn get(&self) -> Result<&T, String> {
match self {
Self::Parsed(t) => Ok(t),
Self::Unparsed(v) => Err(format!("Unable to Parse {:?}", v)),
Self::NotPresent => Err("Parameter not Present".to_string())
}
}
// pub fn get_direct(&self) -> &T {
// match self {
// Self::Parsed(t) => t,
// _ => panic!("Can't get this value!"),
// }
// }
}
match &nested.a.get().unwrap()[1].c.get.expect("Missing C Parameter").e{
Parsed(val) => {println!("Got value of E: {}", val)},
Unparsed(val) => {println!("Invalid Type: {:?}", val)}
NotPresent => {println!("Param E Not Found")},
};
//Note the use of '&' at the beginning because we need to borrow a reference to it
I know I need to change my mindset to use the rust way of thinking, and I am completely open to other suggestions if they can demonstrate some working code.

Match on pair of enum when both are of the same kind

I want to get rid of the repeated code here, and not have to list each enum kind:
use Geometry::*;
let geometry = match (&self.geometry, &other.geometry) {
(Point(a), Point(b)) => Point(*a.interpolate(b, t)),
(Curve(a), Curve(b)) => Curve(*a.interpolate(b, t)),
(EPBox(a), EPBox(b)) => EPBox(*a.interpolate(b, t)),
(_, _) => unimplemented!("Kinds not matching")
};
The types inside the kinds all implement the Interpolate trait which has the interpolate method:
enum Geometry {
Point(Point),
Curve(Curve),
EPBox(EPBox)
}
trait Interpolate {
fn interpolate(&self, other: &Self, t: f64) -> Box<Self> {
// ...
}
}
impl Interpolate for Point {}
impl Interpolate for Curve {}
impl Interpolate for EPBox {}
What I want to do is something like this:
let geometry = match (&self.geometry, &other.geometry) {
(x(a), x(b)) => x(*a.interpolate(b, t)), // and check that a and b impls Interpolate
(_, _) => unimplemented!("Kinds not matching")
};
I'm not sure how many of these operations you want to implement, and how many enum variants you actually have. Depending on that, the best answer changes quite a bit, I think. If you really only have one operation (interpolate), and three variants: type it out, anything else will be a lot less simple and maintainable.
That being said, I might use
let geometry = binop!(match (&self.geometry, &other.geometry) {
(a, b) => *a.interpolate(b, t)
});
based on
macro_rules! binop {
(match ($av:expr, $bv:expr) { ($a:ident, $b:ident) => $op:expr }) => {{
use Geometry::*;
binop!($av, $bv, $a, $b, $op, Point, Curve, EPBox)
}};
($av:expr, $bv:expr, $a:ident, $b:ident, $op:expr, $($var:path),*) => {
match ($av, $bv) {
$(($var($a), $var($b)) => $var($op),)*
_ => unimplemented!("Kinds not matching")
}
};
}
Playground
You'll have to list up the enum variants once. If you don't want that, you'll have to go for a proc macro. I think that would be overkill.
With your current code, you can't really do this. Checking if the enum variants are the same variant is fairly simple with the use of core::mem::discriminant, but you can't access the contained value without match or if let statements. What you can do is use type parameters for the variables and type IDs. This is a really tacky way to do things, and should be avoided really, but it works. I've given an example to show you how you could implement it
use std::any::Any;
trait SomeTrait {
fn some_function(&self, other: Self) -> &Self;
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Var0 {
eg: i64
}
#[derive(Clone)]
struct Var1 {
other_eg: f64
}
fn check<T: 'static, B: 'static>(lhs: T, rhs: B) -> Option<T> {
if lhs.type_id() == rhs.type_id() {
Some(lhs.some_function(rhs))
} else {
None
}
}
fn main() {
let a = Var0{ eg: 2 };
let b = Var0{ eg: 9 };
let c = Var1 { other_eg: -3f64 };
assert!(check(a.clone(), b).is_some());
assert!(check(a, c).is_none());
}
impl SomeTrait for Var0 { /* ... */ }
impl SomeTrait for Var1 { /* ... */ }
Please note though: as I said before this is messy and pretty hacky and not very nice to read. If I were writing this I would use the match statement over this, but it's up to you what you do since this does require some reworking to implement. I'm also not sure if you can use different lifetimes for the check function other than `static which might be a problem.
I came up with the following solution, which is easy to extend with new Interpolate types:
macro_rules! geometries {
( $( $x:ident ),+ ) => {
enum Geometry {
$(
$x($x),
)*
}
fn interpolate_geometries(a: &Geometry, b: &Geometry, t: f64) -> Geometry {
use Geometry::*;
match (a, b) {
$(
($x(a), $x(b)) => $x(a.interpolate(b, t)),
)*
_ => unimplemented!("Kinds not matching")
}
}
$(
impl Interpolate for $x {}
)*
};
}
geometries!(Point, Curve, EPBox);
Which make it possible to later do:
let geometry = interpolate_geometries(&self.geometry, &other.geometry, t);
Thanks for all answers and comments! Especially the one with the binop macro, which is quite similar to my solution. After reading up on macros (thanks to comments here) I came up with this solution.

rust extend built-in enum Result?

tl;dr Is it possible to extend std::result::Result to add my own variant that signals "things are Okay but also..." and keep impl Result methods like is_ok()?
I want to extend Result to signal additional states that a function caller can use for special cases.
use std::result::Result
use std::io::Error;
/// Extend Result to also signal "things are okay but check on things"
enum ResultExt<T, E> {
Result<T, E>,
OkButCheckThings(T),
}
pub fn do_stuff() -> ResultExt<u64, Error> {
// ...
}
pub fn main() -> {
let var = match do_stuff() {
Ok(val) => { val },
Err(err) => { 0 },
OkButCheckThings(val) => { check_things(); val },
}
dbg!(var);
}
It's possible to plainly extend an Enum. But I would also like to use the underlying Result<T, E> functions like is_ok.
let var2 = do_stuff();
if var2.is_ok() {
println!("It is totally Ok, nothing to check!");
}
I created a rust playground example that successfully extends Result<T, E> but the extended enum cannot use functions like is_ok().
The real-world use-case is a function that calls std::io::Read may need to "modify" the returned Result to signal additional states beyond Ok and Err. But I want these various "meta states" to be captured by one enum, as opposed to returning various other bool flags (I want to avoid return signature with (Result<T>, bool, bool). This would allow one clean match statement of all possible states; Ok, Err, "Okay but...", "Err but ...", etc..
There is no current way of "extending" and enum perse.
But it could be simply solved by embedding your own enum type into the result itself.
Simple example, similar to yours:
use std::fmt::Display;
enum StuffToCheck<T> {
Ok(T),
CheckThis(T),
}
impl<T> StuffToCheck<T>
where
T: Display + Copy,
{
pub fn check_things(&self) -> T {
match self {
Self::Ok(val) => {
*val
}
Self::CheckThis(val) => {
println!("Checking stuff for {}", val);
*val
}
}
}
}
fn do_stuff() -> ResultExt<u64> {
Ok(StuffToCheck::CheckThis(10))
}
type ResultExt<T> = Result<StuffToCheck<T>, std::io::Error>;
fn main() {
let var = match do_stuff() {
Ok(result) => result.check_things(),
Err(_err) => 0,
};
dbg!(var);
}
Playground
You could even use nested pattern matching:
...
match do_stuff() {
Err(e) => {//handle error}
Ok(StuffToCheck::Ok(value)) => { value },
Ok(StuffToCheck::CheckThis(value)) => {
check_things(value);
value
}
}
...
I think this is an instance of the X-Y problem. You can use the built-in result, you just need a different error type, that returns an option: Some(partial_result) or None.
For example you have function parse, that can attempt to adjust for a malformed input, but report the error.
pub fn parse(b: &str) -> Result<&str, CustomParseError> {
// Do something that might fail,
if failed(){
return CustomParseError::new(None)
} else if partially_failed() {
return CustomParseError::new(Some(partial_result))
} else {
return completeResult
}
}
This way you have a clean code path where nothing failed, and all of your assumptions are correct, and if it's not => instead of unwrapping, you match and check which case you have. This is vastly superior, because the error often contains enough information for you to reconstruct both what went wrong, and what could be done to fix it.

What's the most idiomatic way of working with an Iterator of Results? [duplicate]

This question already has answers here:
How do I stop iteration and return an error when Iterator::map returns a Result::Err?
(4 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I have code like this:
let things = vec![/* ...*/]; // e.g. Vec<String>
things
.map(|thing| {
let a = try!(do_stuff(thing));
Ok(other_stuff(a))
})
.filter(|thing_result| match *thing_result {
Err(e) => true,
Ok(a) => check(a),
})
.map(|thing_result| {
let a = try!(thing_result);
// do stuff
b
})
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>()
In terms of semantics, I want to stop processing after the first error.
The above code works, but it feels quite cumbersome. Is there a better way? I've looked through the docs for something like filter_if_ok, but I haven't found anything.
I am aware of collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>, and it works great. I'm specifically trying to eliminate the following boilerplate:
In the filter's closure, I have to use match on thing_result. I feel like this should just be a one-liner, e.g. .filter_if_ok(|thing| check(a)).
Every time I use map, I have to include an extra statement let a = try!(thing_result); in order to deal with the possibility of an Err. Again, I feel like this could be abstracted away into .map_if_ok(|thing| ...).
Is there another approach I can use to get this level of conciseness, or do I just need to tough it out?
There are lots of ways you could mean this.
If you just want to panic, use .map(|x| x.unwrap()).
If you want all results or a single error, collect into a Result<X<T>>:
let results: Result<Vec<i32>, _> = result_i32_iter.collect();
If you want everything except the errors, use .filter_map(|x| x.ok()) or .flat_map(|x| x).
If you want everything up to the first error, use .scan((), |_, x| x.ok()).
let results: Vec<i32> = result_i32_iter.scan((), |_, x| x.ok());
Note that these operations can be combined with earlier operations in many cases.
Since Rust 1.27, Iterator::try_for_each could be of interest:
An iterator method that applies a fallible function to each item in the iterator, stopping at the first error and returning that error.
This can also be thought of as the fallible form of for_each() or as the stateless version of try_fold().
You can implement these iterators yourself. See how filter and map are implemented in the standard library.
map_ok implementation:
#[derive(Clone)]
pub struct MapOkIterator<I, F> {
iter: I,
f: F,
}
impl<A, B, E, I, F> Iterator for MapOkIterator<I, F>
where
F: FnMut(A) -> B,
I: Iterator<Item = Result<A, E>>,
{
type Item = Result<B, E>;
#[inline]
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Self::Item> {
self.iter.next().map(|x| x.map(&mut self.f))
}
}
pub trait MapOkTrait {
fn map_ok<F, A, B, E>(self, func: F) -> MapOkIterator<Self, F>
where
Self: Sized + Iterator<Item = Result<A, E>>,
F: FnMut(A) -> B,
{
MapOkIterator {
iter: self,
f: func,
}
}
}
impl<I, T, E> MapOkTrait for I
where
I: Sized + Iterator<Item = Result<T, E>>,
{
}
filter_ok is almost the same:
#[derive(Clone)]
pub struct FilterOkIterator<I, P> {
iter: I,
predicate: P,
}
impl<I, P, A, E> Iterator for FilterOkIterator<I, P>
where
P: FnMut(&A) -> bool,
I: Iterator<Item = Result<A, E>>,
{
type Item = Result<A, E>;
#[inline]
fn next(&mut self) -> Option<Result<A, E>> {
for x in self.iter.by_ref() {
match x {
Ok(xx) => if (self.predicate)(&xx) {
return Some(Ok(xx));
},
Err(_) => return Some(x),
}
}
None
}
}
pub trait FilterOkTrait {
fn filter_ok<P, A, E>(self, predicate: P) -> FilterOkIterator<Self, P>
where
Self: Sized + Iterator<Item = Result<A, E>>,
P: FnMut(&A) -> bool,
{
FilterOkIterator {
iter: self,
predicate: predicate,
}
}
}
impl<I, T, E> FilterOkTrait for I
where
I: Sized + Iterator<Item = Result<T, E>>,
{
}
Your code may look like this:
["1", "2", "3", "4"]
.iter()
.map(|x| x.parse::<u16>().map(|a| a + 10))
.filter_ok(|x| x % 2 == 0)
.map_ok(|x| x + 100)
.collect::<Result<Vec<_>, std::num::ParseIntError>>()
playground
filter_map can be used to reduce simple cases of mapping then filtering. In your example there is some logic to the filter so I don't think it simplifies things. I don't see any useful functions in the documentation for Result either unfortunately. I think your example is as idiomatic as it could get, but here are some small improvements:
let things = vec![...]; // e.g. Vec<String>
things.iter().map(|thing| {
// The ? operator can be used in place of try! in the nightly version of Rust
let a = do_stuff(thing)?;
Ok(other_stuff(a))
// The closure braces can be removed if the code is a single expression
}).filter(|thing_result| match *thing_result {
Err(e) => true,
Ok(a) => check(a),
}
).map(|thing_result| {
let a = thing_result?;
// do stuff
b
})
The ? operator can be less readable in some cases, so you might not want to use it.
If you are able to change the check function to return Some(x) instead of true, and None instead of false, you can use filter_map:
let bar = things.iter().filter_map(|thing| {
match do_stuff(thing) {
Err(e) => Some(Err(e)),
Ok(a) => {
let x = other_stuff(a);
if check_2(x) {
Some(Ok(x))
} else {
None
}
}
}
}).map(|thing_result| {
let a = try!(thing_result);
// do stuff
b
}).collect::<Result<Vec<_>, _>>();
You can get rid of the let a = try!(thing); by using a match in some cases as well. However, using filter_map here doesn't seem to help.

How to map a parametrized enum from a generic type to another?

If I have a type like MyEnum<T>, how can I map it in cases where not every variant is parameterized?
For example, I'd like to convert from MyEnum<u32> to MyEnum<String>:
enum MyEnum<T> {
B,
C,
D(T),
}
fn trans(a: MyEnum<u32>) -> MyEnum<String> {
match a {
MyEnum::D(i) => MyEnum::D(i.to_string()),
other_cases => other_cases,
}
}
fn main() {}
This fails with:
error[E0308]: match arms have incompatible types
--> src/main.rs:8:9
|
8 | match a {
| ^ expected struct `std::string::String`, found u32
|
= note: expected type `MyEnum<std::string::String>`
= note: found type `MyEnum<u32>`
note: match arm with an incompatible type
--> src/main.rs:10:28
|
10 | other_cases => other_cases,
| ^^^^^^^^^^^
Instead of the other_cases => other_cases line, I tried this, also without success:
other_cases => {
let o: MyEnum<String> = other_cases;
o
}
I'd create a map method on your enum:
#[derive(Debug)]
enum MyEnum<T> {
B,
C,
D(T),
}
impl<T> MyEnum<T> {
fn map<U>(self, f: impl FnOnce(T) -> U) -> MyEnum<U> {
use MyEnum::*;
match self {
B => B,
C => C,
D(x) => D(f(x)),
}
}
}
fn main() {
let answer = MyEnum::D(42);
let answer2 = answer.map(|x| x.to_string());
println!("{:?}", answer2);
}
This is similar to existing map methods, such as Option::map.
Well, this is actually an answer:
enum MyEnum<T> {
B,
C,
D(T),
}
fn trans(a: MyEnum<u32>) -> MyEnum<String> {
match a {
MyEnum::D(i) => MyEnum::D(i.to_string()),
MyEnum::B => MyEnum::B,
MyEnum::C => MyEnum::C
}
}
fn main() {
}
But repeating all variants isn't acceptable when there's a lot of them..
Some languages (like C++), use Duck Typing: if it quacks like a duck, it must be a duck, and therefore names matter. Rust does not.
In Rust, names are just some display utility for us mere humans, the B in MyEnum<u32> and MyEnum<String> may happen to have the same visual representation, but they are completely different syntactic entities as far as the language is concerned.
There are multiple ways to alleviate your pain, though:
a code generation plugin or build.rs script can be used as well
a macro can be used to automate the mapping
a manual mapping can be done, it's a one shot effort after all
the code can be restructured to separate type-dependent from type-independent variants
I'll show-case the latter:
enum MyEnumImpl {
A,
B,
C,
}
enum MyEnum<T> {
Independent(MyEnumImpl),
Dependent(T),
}
Obviously, the latter makes it much easier to manually map things.
macro_rules! partial_enum {
($name: ident, $some: ident, $($none: ident),+) => {
#[derive(Debug)]
enum $name<T> {
$some(T),
$($none),+
}
impl<T> $name<T> {
fn convert<U>(self) -> Result<$name<U>, T> {
match self {
$name::$some(x) => Err(x),
$($name::$none => Ok($name::$none)),+
}
}
}
}
}
partial_enum!(MyEnum, D, B, C);
fn trans(a: MyEnum<u32>) -> MyEnum<String> {
let a_split: Result<MyEnum<String>, u32> = a.convert();
match a_split {
Ok(is_none) => is_none,
Err(not_none) => MyEnum::D(not_none.to_string()),
}
}
fn main() {
println!("{:?}", trans(MyEnum::D(13)));
}

Resources