While playing around with Rust and its generics I came along some problem for which I cannot find any documentation.
I have implemented a type Wrapper which wraps another type. At some point I wanted to implement the From trait.
impl<TSrc, TDst> From<Wrapper<TSrc>> for Wrapper<TDst>
where
TSrc: From<TDst>
{
fn from(other: Wrapper<TSrc>) -> Self {
todo!()
}
}
rustc complains with following error
58 | impl<TSrc, TDst> From<Wrapper<TSrc>> for Wrapper<TDst>
| ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|
= note: conflicting implementation in crate `core`:
- impl<T> From<T> for T;
This makes sense if TSrc and TDst are the same. Is it somehow possible to explicitly exclude TSrc from TDst?
No, it is not possible to exclude specific types in a generic implementation.
There's not really a general workaround beyond "do something else" which would typically look like an inherent conversion method, using a different (custom) trait, or allowing another mechanism for users to access the inner values and do the conversion themselves.
There may be mechanisms in the future like specialization or negative impls that could allow such an implementation (or similar), but nothing is on the horizon.
See also:
How is there a conflicting implementation of `From` when using a generic type?
Why do blanket implementations for two different traits conflict?
Is it possible to exclude a type from generic trait implementation?
When looking through the documentation of Rust structs, I often come across a section with the title "Blanket Implementations". I have heard that it can be used to implement a trait for all types or all types that match some condition but I am not sure why this is needed.
So what really are Blanket Implementations and why are they useful in Rust?
A blanket implementation is an implementation of a trait on a generic parameter:
impl<T> Trait for T
They usually also have where clauses involved since it is very hard to do anything useful to an unconstrained T. This does not cover things like impl<T> Trait for Vec<T>, which is a generic implementation but not a blanket implementation.
They are documented separately since they are applied without any particularity and may or may not be relevant to the type you're looking at. Whereas for the normal "Trait Implementations" section, all those traits at least had some thought for the specific type in mind (usually).
They are patently useful since it implements the trait for anything, in the entire ecosystem! If something satisfies the constraints, then it is able to take advantage of the implementation without needing to implement it themselves. You do not need to do anything to "opt-in" besides bringing the trait into scope.
Some notable ones:
From<T> is implemented for all T (the identity implementation)
Into<U> is implemented for all T where T: From<U> (the reflexive implementation that allows you to call .into() when a matching From implementation exists)
Any is implemented for all T where T: 'static
They are also needed to implement "trait aliases" where you create a trait that is constrained over multiple other traits (handy for reducing boilerplate and needed for multi-trait trait objects). You use a blanket implementation that the trait is implemented for any type satisfying the super-traits:
trait MyCoolAsyncTrait: AsyncRead + AsyncWrite + AsyncSeek + 'static {}
impl<T> MyCoolAsyncTrait for T
where
T: AsyncRead + AsyncWrite + AsyncSeek + 'static
{ }
Be careful when adding them to your types though. Because of their extensive scope, they can easily conflict with other trait implementations that may be desirable. You can only define one blanket implementation per type (even if the constraints are non-overlapping).
See also:
What are blanket implementations? (Rust forum)
Traits: Defining Shared Behavior in the Rust book
Is there any way to create a type alias for multiple traits?
How is there a conflicting implementation of `From` when using a generic type?
Why do blanket implementations for two different traits conflict?
The following code uses a struct with generic type. While its implementation is only valid for the given trait bound, the struct can be defined with or without the same bound. The struct's fields are private so no other code could create an instance anyway.
trait Trait {
fn foo(&self);
}
struct Object<T: Trait> {
value: T,
}
impl<T: Trait> Object<T> {
fn bar(object: Object<T>) {
object.value.foo();
}
}
Should the trait bound for the structure should be omitted to conform to the DRY principle, or should it be given to clarify the dependency? Or are there circumstances one solution should be preferred over the other?
I believe that the existing answers are misleading. In most cases, you should not put a bound on a struct unless the struct literally will not compile without it.
tl;dr
Bounds on structs express the wrong thing for most people. They are infectious, redundant, sometimes nearsighted, and often confusing. Even when a bound feels right, you should usually leave it off until it's proven necessary.
(In this answer, anything I say about structs applies equally to enums.)
0. Bounds on structs have to be repeated everywhere the struct is
This is the most obvious, but (to me) least compelling reason to avoid writing bounds on structs. As of this writing (Rust 1.65), you have to repeat every struct's bounds on every impl that touches it, which is a good enough reason not to put bounds on structs for now. However, there is an accepted RFC (implied_bounds) which, when implemented and stabilized, will change this by inferring the redundant bounds. But even then, bounds on structs are still usually wrong:
1. Bounds on structs leak out of abstractions.
Your data structure is special. "Object<T> only makes sense if T is Trait," you say. And perhaps you are right. But the decision affects not just Object, but any other data structure that contains an Object<T>, even if it does not always contain an Object<T>. Consider a programmer who wants to wrap your Object in an enum:
enum MyThing<T> { // error[E0277]: the trait bound `T: Trait` is not satisfied
Wrapped(your::Object<T>),
Plain(T),
}
Within the downstream code this makes sense because MyThing::Wrapped is only used with Ts that do implement Thing, while Plain can be used with any type. But if your::Object<T> has a bound on T, this enum can't be compiled without that same bound, even if there are lots of uses for a Plain(T) that don't require such a bound. Not only does this not work, but even if adding the bound doesn't make it entirely useless, it also exposes the bound in the public API of any struct that happens to use MyThing.
Bounds on structs limit what other people can do with them. Bounds on code (impls and functions) do too, of course, but those constraints are (presumably) required by your own code, while bounds on structs are a preemptive strike against anyone downstream who might use your struct in an innovative way. This may be useful, but unnecessary bounds are particularly annoying for innovators because they constrain what can compile without usefully constraining what can actually run (more on that in a moment).
2. Bounds on structs are redundant with bounds on code.
So you don't think downstream innovation is possible? That doesn't mean the struct itself needs a bound. To make it impossible to construct an Object<T> without T: Trait, it is enough to put that bound on the impl that contains Object's constructor(s); if it's impossible to call a_method on an Object<T> without T: Trait you can say that on the impl that contains a_method, or perhaps on a_method itself. (Until implied_bounds is implemented, you have to, anyway, so you don't even have the weak justification of "saving keystrokes.")
Even and especially when you can't think of any way for downstream to use an un-bounded Object<T>, you should not forbid it a priori, because...
3. Bounds on structs mean something different to the type system than bounds on code.
A T: Trait bound on Object<T> means more than "all Object<T>s have to have T: Trait"; it actually means something like "the concept of Object<T> itself does not make sense unless T: Trait", which is a more abstract idea. Think about natural language: I've never seen a purple elephant, but I can easily name the concept of "purple elephant" despite the fact that it corresponds to no real-world animal. Types are a kind of language and it can make sense to refer to the idea of Elephant<Purple>, even when you don't know how to create one and you certainly have no use for one. Similarly, it can make sense to express the type Object<NotTrait> in the abstract even if you don't and can't have one in hand right now. Especially when NotTrait is a type parameter, which may not be known in this context to implement Trait but in some other context does.
Case study: Cell<T>
For one example of a struct that originally had a trait bound which was eventually removed, look no farther than Cell<T>, which originally had a T: Copy bound. In the RFC to remove the bound many people initially made the same kinds of arguments you may be thinking of right now, but the eventual consensus was that "Cell requires Copy" was always the wrong way to think about Cell. The RFC was merged, paving the way for innovations like Cell::as_slice_of_cells, which lets you do things you couldn't before in safe code, including temporarily opt-in to shared mutation. The point is that T: Copy was never a useful bound on Cell<T>, and it would have done no harm (and possibly some good) to leave it off from the beginning.
This kind of abstract constraint can be hard to wrap one's head around, which is probably one reason why it's so often misused. Which relates to my last point:
4. Unnecessary bounds invite unnecessary parameters (which are worse).
This does not apply to all cases of bounds on structs, but it is a common point of confusion. You may, for instance, have a struct with a type parameter that should implement a generic trait, but not know what parameter(s) the trait should take. In such cases it is tempting to use PhantomData to add a type parameter to the main struct, but this is usually a mistake, not least because PhantomData is hard to use correctly. Here are some examples of unnecessary parameters added because of unnecessary bounds: 1 2 3 4 5 In the majority of such cases, the correct solution is simply to remove the bound.
Exceptions to the rule
Okay, when do you need a bound on a struct? I can think of two possible reasons.
In Shepmaster's answer, the struct will simply not compile without a bound, because the Iterator implementation for I actually defines what the struct contains. One other way that a struct won't compile without a bound is when its implementation of Drop has to use the trait somehow. Drop can't have bounds that aren't on the struct, for soundness reasons, so you have to write them on the struct as well.
When you're writing unsafe code and you want it to rely on a bound (T: Send, for example), you might need to put that bound on the struct. unsafe code is special because it can rely on invariants that are guaranteed by non-unsafe code, so just putting the bound on the impl that contains the unsafe is not necessarily enough.
But in all other cases, unless you really know what you're doing, you should avoid bounds on structs entirely.
Trait bounds that apply to every instance of the struct should be applied to the struct:
struct IteratorThing<I>
where
I: Iterator,
{
a: I,
b: Option<I::Item>,
}
Trait bounds that only apply to certain instances should only be applied to the impl block they pertain to:
struct Pair<T> {
a: T,
b: T,
}
impl<T> Pair<T>
where
T: std::ops::Add<T, Output = T>,
{
fn sum(self) -> T {
self.a + self.b
}
}
impl<T> Pair<T>
where
T: std::ops::Mul<T, Output = T>,
{
fn product(self) -> T {
self.a * self.b
}
}
to conform to the DRY principle
The redundancy will be removed by RFC 2089:
Eliminate the need for “redundant” bounds on functions and impls where
those bounds can be inferred from the input types and other trait
bounds. For example, in this simple program, the impl would no longer
require a bound, because it can be inferred from the Foo<T> type:
struct Foo<T: Debug> { .. }
impl<T: Debug> Foo<T> {
// ^^^^^ this bound is redundant
...
}
It really depends on what the type is for. If it is only intended to hold values which implement the trait, then yes, it should have the trait bound e.g.
trait Child {
fn name(&self);
}
struct School<T: Child> {
pupil: T,
}
impl<T: Child> School<T> {
fn role_call(&self) -> bool {
// check everyone is here
}
}
In this example, only children are allowed in the school so we have the bound on the struct.
If the struct is intended to hold any value but you want to offer extra behaviour when the trait is implemented, then no, the bound shouldn't be on the struct e.g.
trait GoldCustomer {
fn get_store_points(&self) -> i32;
}
struct Store<T> {
customer: T,
}
impl<T: GoldCustomer> Store {
fn choose_reward(customer: T) {
// Do something with the store points
}
}
In this example, not all customers are gold customers and it doesn't make sense to have the bound on the struct.
I want to be able to convert any iterator into MyType.
impl<T, I: IntoIterator<Item = T>> From<I> for MyType<T>
As in
MyType<T>::from<I: IntoIterator>(iter: I) -> MyType<T>
As one expects, it makes sense for MyType to itself be convertible to an Iterator and satisfy IntoIterator as a trait, and it does.
But From is automatically implemented reflexively for any type, any type can convert into itself of course, and this is where the compiler barks:
error[E0119]: conflicting implementations of trait
`std::convert::From<MyType<_>>` for type `MyType<_>`:
My generic implementation for all IntoIterators conflicts with the default one. If Rust did not provide a default one then it would actually work albeit being needlessly expensive.
Is there any way to implement the trait for any member of IntoIterator except MyType?
There is actually a precedent in the Rust standard library: Iterator::collect is about creating a new value from an iterator.
Following this model, rather than implementing std::convert::From, you should implement std::iter::FromIterator.
And then there will be no conflict.
In my optional crate, I wanted to implement Eq for all pre-declared types, and allow users to opt in, too, by having their types declare Eq. So I wrote:
impl<T: Noned + Copy + Eq + PartialEq> Eq for Optioned<T> {}
impl Eq for Optioned<f32> {}
impl Eq for Optioned<f64> {}
However, rustc complains with E0119, stating that I've run afoul of the coherence rules.
My Optioned<T> is defined as pub struct Optioned<T: Noned + Copy> { value: T }. The Noned trait is pre-defined for all number primitives.
Now, neither f32 nor f64 implement Eq, so I would have thought the impls be strictly non-overlapping. Can someone
explain why the coherence rules trip me up and
tell me how to change my code to make it work anyway?
Now, neither f32 nor f64 implement Eq, so I would have thought the impls be strictly non-overlapping.
The problem stems from the fact that you don't control the types f32 or f64. The implementors of those types (in this case, the language itself), could choose to implement Eq for those types in the future.
If that were to happen, then your code would just suddenly start failing when you updated the crate the types came from (or the language, in this case). In order to prevent that, Rust disallows this construct. To my knowledge, there is no workaround.